ID: nht89-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM CONRAD S. BROOKS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2859

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle saf ety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR @ 571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety s tandards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial bus inesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth

in 49 CFR @ 571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity for all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D. J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehic le weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR @ 571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire -ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any de termination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference wha t proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehic le can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle com plied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modifications were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the m odifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish som e limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the mod ifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engi neering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO M. IWASE; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

Koito would like to confirm the following prescription of license plate lamp in Table II and IV of FMVSS No. 108.

TABLE II - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Multipurpose passenger Trailers road surface vehicles, trucks, and busses measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate, to No plate illuminate the plate from the illuminate the plate from requirement lamp top or sides. the top or sides. TABLE IV - LOCATION OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT Location on Height above Item Passenger cars, multipurpose Motorcycles road surface passenger vehicles, measuredLicense At rear license plate, to At rear license plate No plate illuminate the plate from the requirementlamp top or sides.

We interpret that the license plate lamp is not permitted to illuminate the plate from the bottom (except Motorcycle).

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly and promptly give us your confirmation as to whether the illumination from the bottom be permissible.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht89-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JUNITA P. DAVISON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 FROM JUANITA P. DAVISON TO NHTSA, OCC 2041

TEXT: Dear Ms. Davison:

Thank you for your letter describing your impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system "takes away the roominess of the front," because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as saf ety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the fi rst requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision t o repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, for mer Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pr oper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to

save lives at virtually no cost to the customer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision requiring further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That per centage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-th irds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

You have three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant C rash Protection request all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly r ender inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a "device or element of desig n installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distri butor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicl es by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism , you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt,

because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of you r car has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. Hence, the su ggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash prot ection for all Americans.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH A. MCDOWELL -- VICE PRESIDENT -- ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS GROUP AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/25/89 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM KEITH A. MCDOWELL TO NHTSA, OCC 2908

TEXT: Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 100,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seat s of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (48 CFR @ 571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. T hat section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @ 571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 21 0 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat b elt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a larg e bus would have to be

certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are tha t each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicl e for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the safety criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manu facturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicate s that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large buses would meet a ll the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the

applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/89

FROM: SAMUEL KIMMELMAN -- PRODUCT ENGINEERING MANAGER PARKER HANNIFIN CORP

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL FMVSS-108 NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SAMUAL KIMMELMAN -- PARKER HANNAFIN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

It is our understanding that FMVSS-108 allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated.

1. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal.

b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps.

a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal.

The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on.

b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on.

Is our interpretation of what is allowed by FMVSS-108 regarding the operation of vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps upon actuation of both the hazard and brake switces correct?

If our interpretation of FMVSS-108 is correct, is NHTSA presently considering a NPRM to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switches are actuated?

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1989

FROM: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton, Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from P.J. Rice to H.R. Prieto (A36; Std. 116)

TEXT:

Our company has blended and packaged brake fluids in Puerto Rico for over 10 years. We have always interpreted that the lot number/packaging date must be printed directly on the brake fluid container for us to be in strict compliance under FMVSS 116.

Given the aggressiveness of brake fluids on any ink, we have always wished we were allowed to use a label notch coding system which we have used successfully for years in our detergent packaging operation. The relative simplicity of the mechanical devic e, vis-a-vis the jet-ink coder, also makes thc notch system operationally more reliable.

The recent revisions in S5.2.2.2 of standard 116 seem oriented to demand indelibility and permanence in the information required on the brake fluid label or container. No ink system could possibly match the notched label on either count. In the spirit of this new approach, I urge you to consider the notch system as an acceptable method of batch/date coding brake fluid bottles.

I am attaching copies of the literature from the exclusive supplier of this system for your perusal.

I hope you concur with our assessment and look forward to your comments. Please let me know if you need any additional informational from us.

Attached is literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted).

ID: nht89-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/89

FROM: DAVID BLUMBERG -- STRUCTO FAB INCORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID BLUMBERG; REDBOOK A33 [6]; VSA 102 [5]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; PART 566

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel

I had a rather lengthy conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, about our proposed business. Based on what he said I believe we qualify as a remanufacturer, but he suggested we write for your interpretation.

We plan on acquiring used chassis, less the corroded body, from various third parties. These chassis are from the right hand drive jeep vehicles, presently being used by the U.S. Post Office.

Once we obtain the chassis we then plan to repair, to restore or to replace parts required to bring the chassis up to a quality level.

When the vehicle mechanics are satisfactory we will add a new fiberglass body and hood. We will also add new seats and interior decoration.

As stated earlier I believe the assembly process described above qualifies us as a re-manufacturer, but because we wish to be sure we are asking for your opinion.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht89-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH E. MADDEN -- RESEARCH ASSOCIATE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA, OCC 3106; LETTER DATED 12/04/87 FROM PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT TO GEORGE PARKER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, th e importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it m ust write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA

TO: ROBERT C. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM ROBERT C. SMITH TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER, DATED 02/28/89; LETTER FROM MAUREEN ANDREWS TO ROBERT C. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Maureen Andrews, of Derry. You expressed concern about the absence of safety belts for school bus passengers and about the number of persons to occupy a school bus seat. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards addressing various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel system integrity. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to make school buses, already a safe mode of transportation, even safer.

We have considered the safety belt issue in connection with our safety standard for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protectio n through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of whether these passengers use safety belts.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our notice terminating a rulemaking proceeding to decide whether Standard No. 222 should be amended to specify certain requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses. We deci ded not to amend the standard since these belts appear to be currently installed in a manner that ensures adequate safety performance. The notice provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by Mrs. Andrews. As explained in the notice , school buses in this country have compiled an

excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses differ from small school buses in that they have greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. For all of these reasons, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities in large school buses is not the same as that for smaller vehicles, such as small school buses. Thus, although Standard No. 222 does require safety belts for passengers in small schoo l buses, we conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts in large school buses is not justified at this time.

Mrs. Andrews also asks about requirements that apply to the number of children that are allowed to sit on a bench seat. We are not authorized by Congress to regulate the number of persons that may occupy a school bus seat. However, for the purposes of ensuring that school bus manufacturers properly design their large buses, we do specify the method for establishing the number of designated seating positions on a bench seat.

The number of seating positions on a bench seat is calculated under Standard No. 222 by dividing the bench width in inches by 15 and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Under this formula, a 39 inch bench seat has three seating positions. (39 divided by 15 = 2.6, which is rounded to 3) For small school buses, the determination of the number of positions ensures that the bench seat would have sufficient restraint systems for the maximum number of persons that should ever occupy the seat, a nd that the seat provides crash protection to all these persons. For large school buses, the determination ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the number of occupants and of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash.

It should be noted, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the Standard No. 222 formula is not meant to be an absolute measure of the seating capacity of the bus, irrespective of occupant size. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, while a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, it may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes,the appropriate decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, it is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passen gers involved, and in accordance with state and local requirements.

Since NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate how States use school buses, the agency could not preclude a State from allowing the number of passengers on a bench seat to exceed the number of designated seating positions on that seat. However, we a gree with Mrs. Andrews that a student should not stand while riding in a school bus. We agree further

that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mrs. Andrews' concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by her working with the local school board and state officials.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: DAVID S. HUGHES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO DAVID S. HUGHES; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones

In speaking to Mr. August Bergett, I was instructed to write to you concerning a lighting fixture I would like to put on the rear of my Tractor Trailer.

The fixture is an open faced box with measurements of 31 x 5 x 2 inches in size, and is made of 21 gage steel. The face is a separate piece made of plastic and is dark tint in color. This plastic face will have lettering on it, and will illuminate when the inside of the box is lit up. The lettering will spell "THANK YOU" or "THANKS DRIVER" as a courtesy message to passed motorist whom have motioned me to return to the right lane of traffic whether by turning on or off their headlights or slowing down etc. Most truck drivers when passing one another will turn on and off a regulated taillight, clearance light, identification, or hazard light to get this message across. This light is simply expressing a short message of thanks rather than turning on and off a regulated light.

It is designed to light up from a toggle switch which would be installed in the cab of the truck. All electrical wiring, connections and components would be consistent with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, as would be the red lettering on t he face which will be the only illuminated part of the box. The box would be mounted on the rear of the trailer between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer. It could also be mounted directly behind the mud flaps. Either location for mounting would be out of the way of any regulated light.

There is also a possibility of selling the box. If so, I need to know the parameters to follow, as far as the NHTSA is concerned, and the liability factor to me that a light like this would have if sold to another. I suppose what I am asking for in thi s letter is some sort of proof of acceptance or approval, or simply an acknowledgment of the box, its design, and purpose etc.

Thank you for your time and efforts, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,