ID: 77-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1977, letter in which you ask for an interpretation of the certification label requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, as they apply to trailers.

In your first question, you ask whether a trailer manufacturer may conform with the certification requirements in any one of three ways: list the GVWR and GAWR with the corresponding tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which the trailer is equipped; list all suitable combinations with the required information as shown in the example appearing in Standard No. 120; or list only the maximum GVWR and maximum GAWR with the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure, plus the GVWR and GAWR of the trailer with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which it is equipped. According to the requirements of Standard No. 120, any of the three methods outlined above would appear to be acceptable.

Your second question presents a sample certification plate which lists all of the axles on the trailer. You ask whether it is permissible, where the data for all axles is identical, to list the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the front axle then merely state "Same as Front" for the remaining axles rather than repeat the same data for all axles. The label requirements of the standard do not permit the approach you suggest. You must list all data for each axle. You should note that there is a proposal to amend Part 567, Certification, to permit a simplification of label requirements when the data for all axles is identical. I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 16, 1977

Fred Koch Office of Crash Avoidance National Highway Safety Administration

S. 120 - Tire Clarification

It is our understanding that if a trailer manufacturer has several tire options for a trailer model, such as 10.00 x 20, 10.00 x 22, and 10.00 radial x 22, then he may note this at least three different ways on the certification label per S. 120.

(a) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure as the trailer is equipped. That is, he may have three labels to choose from, depending on the tires selected by the purchaser.

(b) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tire, rims, and inflation pressure for each option as shown in the example in S. 120.

(c) He may list the maximum GVWR and the corresponding maximum GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure yielding the maximum rating and the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the trailer as equipped.

Since some European tire manufacturers do not use the "R" in their tire size designation to indicate radial it is understood that the trailer manufacturer may add the note that the stated inflation pressure is for radial tires.

It is also our understanding that where all axles on a trailer are similar, that the certification plate may state:

GVWR: x x x x

GAWR: Front - x x x x with x x x x tires, x x x rims, at xx psi cold dual.

First Intermediate - Same as Front

Second Intermediate - Same as Front

Rear - Same as Front

Please inform us if our understanding of S. 120 is correct.

Don W. Vierimaa Engineering Manager

cc: TTMA ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

ID: 77-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards apply to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.

Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school are not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of "bus" found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. Your should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I first want to thank you very much for your response to my questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

My question today involves, I believe, proper certification, identification and standards compliance. I hope I am correct in the above description of the question as offered herein.

It is our belief that by terms of Federal definition, "a bus" incorporated 10 passengers or more, exclusive of the driver. "A school bus" is subject to the above passenger load and is further defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes, that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. If the above facts are correct, then my question is as follows.

What certification, and thus, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will apply to a vehicle designed primarily and used exclusively to transport students to and from school or related events, which has a passenger load of less than 10?

I am, of course, referring to a vehicle that transports primarily handicapped students Sample floor plans depicting wheelchair locking positions and some seat positions are enclosed. As you can readily see, both floor plans have less than 10 passengers.

We will certainly appreciate your answer to the questions presented and if you desire any additional details, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice President

ID: 77-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America - Western Region

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for clarification of the effect of the preemption section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act upon the use of quartz iodine headlamps by State fire and police organizations. Your letter was prompted by mine of January 18, 1977, to Jack D. Gross, Jr., National Sales Manager of Marchal America, in which I concluded that the preemption section was inapplicable to the conversion of vehicles by owners after initial manufacture.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) reads in pertinent part:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to . . . motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

In my opinion, the preemption language is irrelevant to your primary concern of assuring local agencies that the Federal government has no objection to their use of headlamps that do not comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As I explained to Mr. Gross, the purpose of the preemption doctrine is to ensure uniform national manufacturing standards reserving to States and political subdivisions thereof the right to establish standards setting a higher level of performance on vehicles procured for their own use.

We have always construed this language narrowly. You have not informed us of the existence of any State law, municipal ordinance, or any other legislative act by a State or political subdivision establishing a level of performance for headlamps on publicly owned vehicles, that a manufacturer must meet, and thus the preemption question, in a legal sense, does not arise.

Instead, you have presented the situation of a few State and local agencies (city police, highway patrol, fire department, sheriff) who wish to substitute quartz iodine headlamps on publicly owned vehicles. Although 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) prohibits the removal of vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard, that prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, there is no Federal legal objection to any interested State or local agency replacing its conventional headlamps with quartz iodine ones. Indeed, we would be interested in knowing the views of these agencies after a period of use.

We understand from your letter that the headlamps in question are imported as conforming to the motorcycle headlamp requirements of SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. As long as the headlamps do not exceed the candlepower maxima established by J584, and are not advertised or sold to the general public as suitable for use on passenger cars Marchal America would not appear to be violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

SINCERELY,

MARCHAL AMERICA WESTERN REGION

February 9, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Taylor Vinson

Re: Your File No. N40-30

This is in reply to your correspondence dated January 18, 1977 and our phone conversation on February 7, 1977 regarding headlamp replacements.

Semi-sealed H-4 Iodine headlamp replacements are currently being used by the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, City Police, Fire and Highway Departments in ten of the eleven states in my region. The primary usage of these lamps is in critical need rural areas. General usage is prohibitive because these units cost four to five times more than standard units. Each department that has installed these units conducted cost vs. benefits testing. In each case the results were consistent. Benefits are:

Low Beam: 1. Less glare to opposing drivers;

2. More uniform light pattern on road and shoulder;

3. Light color makes it easier on eyes;

4. Dramatic reduction of whiteout caused by stray vertical light in fog and snow.

High Beam: 1. Besides the obvious increase in distance, peripheral vision is greatly increased allowing the operators to see pedestrians, side traffic and livestock at a great enough distance to allow them to react safely. High beam is primarily used in Code 2 or Code 3 operation where standard headlamps don't give adequate illumination for safe operation of high speed emergency vehicles.

Additional

Benefits: 1. If a rock or debris cracks the lens, you don't lose your headlight in a critical emergency situation;

2. Bulb life span is comparable to standard units and the intensity doesn't deteriorate with age.

We are not talking about an experimental unit that has never been tested. These headlamps are manufactured under the extremely tough international lighting standards known as the "E" or European Code. Every other country in the world has now adopted this standard including our neighbors in Canada. These headlamps are in daily use by some of the most respected state and local safety organizations in the country.

The reason I asked for the clarification on 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) was because the California Highway Patrol has an extremely hazardous fog condition in their central valley. They were interested in testing these units because of their low beam qualities in fog and snow, but they wanted 1392(d) interpreted in writing to make sure it was o.k.

The pertinent part of Section 1392(d) reads:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any state or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

My interpretation of this section prior to your letter was our headlamp came under the classification of motor vehicle equipment and in each case of its use a higher standard of performance was established in both public and operator safety with the use of this unit.

These units are being imported under federal standard 108 J584 for motorcycle use. The spread from motorcycle to vehicle usage starts when a police department discovers that the headlamps that work so well in their motorcycles plug right into their patrol cars.

The international lighting standard mandates that the bulbs be interchangable regardless of the manufacturer, reflector size or shape of the lamp. This was done so that no matter where you travelled, replacement bulbs would be readily available regardless of the type of vehicle.

I respectfully submit these comments for you to consider.

CHAD DORNSIFE

ID: 77-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Romania

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 5, 1977, requesting that the Office of the Economic Counselor be designated as the agent for Uzina de Anvelope Danubiana, upon whom process may be served in the United States.

Section 551.45 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies that the agent be a permanent resident of the United States. It may be an individual, firm, or domestic corporation. The Office of the Economic Counsel, as part of the Embassy, cannot be classified as a permanent resident of the United States. It is not a firm or domestic corporation within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 551.45.

Therefore, we will have to request that Uzina de Anvelope Danubiana designate another individual as its agent, pursuant to section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)).

ID: 77-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 22, 1977, letter asking whether a restraining barrier in front of a seat with a back higher than that required in S5.1.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back.

The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard. That section states that: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. Therefore, a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard No. 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

February 22, 1977

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as applied to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

Must the perimeter of a barrier located in front of a seat having a back higher than that required by Section S5.1.2 coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: 77-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 5, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation concerning the definition of school bus. In particular you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle which in turn determines whether that vehicle will be considered a school bus for purposes of our regulations.

You are correct in your interpretation that a van designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers may transport children to or from school and need not comply with the new school bus safety standards. The NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. The term "designated seating position" is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations) to mean: ". . . any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." Thus, as long as a van purchased for pupil transportation has fewer than 10 designated seating positions for passengers, it is not considered a school bus and need not comply with school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

March 5, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel Federal D.O.T. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm.

We are somewhat unclear as to the meaning and intent of the federal definitions of "school buses" and "vehicles" sold for use as school buses - or being used in pupil transportation - as they apply to vehicle size or passenger capacity.

The State of Wisconsin is presently revising its Administrative Rules governing pupil transportation. It is intended that these proposed revisions will correspond with all federal definitions and regulations. The area that needs clarification is the use of "van-type" vehicles.

We have been given to understand that "vehicles" manufactured for use in pupil transportation require the manufacturer to comply with federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977. Manufacturers of "van-type" vehicles, such as the Chrysler Corp, General Motor and Ford Motor Company, have advised us that the federal regulations apply to these vehicles also, and for that reason, it is their intention not to manufacture a "school van" for sale for use in pupil transportation.

If this information is correct, we would believe that, except for a van "converted" to comply with federal regulations, no van-type vehicle manufactured after April 1, 1977 will be available for use in pupil transportation.

However, it is held that anyone may purchase and use a "van-type" vehicle for use in pupil transportation even though it is manufactured after April 1, 1977 . . . . if the vehicle transports less than 10 persons. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, how does one "measure" a vehicle's passenger carrying capacity?

We believe this area of the federal regulations to be most unclear. If a vehicle transporting "under 10 persons" was exempt from the regulations, then "van-type" vehicles of all sizes could be purchased for use in pupil transportation . . . . as long as its seating capacity was restricted.

We would hope you would enlighten us on this matter, for we are, to say the least, confused.

WISCONSIN SCHOOL BUS ASSOCIATION

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary

ID: 77-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1977, request for an interpretation of paragraph S10.1 of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which specifies that motorcycle mirrors shall be adjustable "by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions." Your letter describes a newly designed motorcycle mirror used on Honda's and asks whether the mirror meets the adjustment requirement of paragraph S10.1 of the standard.

According to your description the mirror is adjusted horizontally by loosening a locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is accomplished by rotating the mounting bracket of the mirror (the rotation is at an angle of 35 degrees to the vertical plane).

Standard No. 111 requires passenger car mirrors and motorcycle mirrors to be adjustable "by tilting". The agency interprets this adjustment requirement to mean that the mirror must be adjustable by the driver without the use of tools (for example, a mirror mounted on a universal ball joint). The adjustment requirement for mirrors on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses only specifies that those mirrors be "adjustable in both the horizontal and vertical directions"; there is no requirement that they be adjustable by "tilting". Therefore, mirror adjustment that requires the use of tools is permitted on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses. The basis for the different adjustment requirement is that trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver, than passenger cars and motorcycles.

Since the motorcycle mirror you describe is not adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions without loosening and retightening the locknuts, it does not appear that the mirror would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

February 23, 1977

Chief Council -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the compliance of a new design for a motorcycle rear-view mirror with the requirements of section S10.1 of FMVSS 111 which becomes effective on February 26, 1977.

Section S10.1 states in part, "The mirror shall be adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions."

The mirror in question is presently used on our model XL100. I am enclosing a brochure which shows the mirror installed on the machine as well as an engineering drawing of the design.

As you will see, the mounting bracket is threaded into the brake or clutch lever mounting and projects outward at an angle of approximately 35 degrees from the horizontal. The mirror holder slips over the end of the bracket and two screws are tightened sufficiently to hold the mirror in place while still allowing it to be adjusted by rotating around the bracket.

The mirror is able to be adjusted horizontally by loosening the locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is performed as described above although the mirror does not rotate exactly in the vertical plane but at an angle of approximately 35 degrees to the vertical.

Your earliest response in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please contact me by telephone at (213) 327-8280 extension 372.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

Enclosure

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis J. Mahr; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether Ford Motor Company's record keeping practices conform to the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Your letter refers to material allegedly destroyed by Ford pertaining to accident and recall information involving headlamp concealment devices in 1967 Mercury Cougars. The NHTSA is unable to ascertain from the information that you have submitted whether or not Ford's record keeping violates our requirements.

The NHTSA implemented on August 20, 1974, a regulation requiring manufacturers to retain for a period of 5 years records generated or acquired after August 15, 1969, concerning motor vehicle malfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR 576, Record Retention). Since the recall to which you refer occurred prior to this regulation, it is possible that the identified records were generated of acquired prior to the promulgation of the regulation, and therefore, the destruction of these records would not necessarily mean that Part 576 was violated.

The NHTSA has a public file concerning the headlamp concealment devices referred to in your letter. This file containing 26 pages of information will be sent to you by our Technical Reference Branch under separate cover.

ID: 77-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1977, letter in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and the definition of school bus.

You first ask whether the seat spacing requirements found in S5.2.1 of the standard are applicable to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. Buses in this weight classification do not have to comply with the mandatory seat spacing requirements. Since these buses are equipped with seat belts, the mandatory seat spacing is not necessary to provide adequate occupant crash protection.

Your second question concerns those areas required to meet the head protection zone requirements. You ask whether the window frame, window supporting structure, and window glass are included within the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA issued an amendment of the standard (Notice 6, 41 FR 28506) in an attempt to clarify those portions of the bus subject to the head protection zone requirements. In this notice (copy enclosed), we stated that the sidewall, window and door structures were never intended to be included within the zone and are not subject to the requirements for head protection. However, the roof structure, if it falls within the zone, is subject to the requirements. If you need further information to determine the portions of your bus that would be included within the head protection zone requirements, I suggest that you send the agency sketches of your bus interior depicting those areas of concern.

Concerning seat orientation, you question whether the requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 of the standard applies to buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of the standard lists the paragraphs of the standard applicable to buses in the above-mentioned weight classification. S5(b) does not refer to S5.1 which contains the requirement for forward facing seats. This omission was an oversight that occurred during the drafting of the regulation. The agency intended that seats in all school buses be forward facing, unless designed for handicapped or convalescent passengers as permitted in Notice 6. This intent is obvious since, as you note, we require these seats to comply with forward and rearward performance requirements. The NHTSA will soon issue an amendment of the standard to correct this omission.

Your final question concerns the definition of school bus which excludes common carriers in urban transportation. Your interpretation of this exclusion is correct. These buses are permitted to transport children to and from school but need not comply with the school bus construction standards.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC.

APRIL 28, 1977

ROGER TILTON NHTSA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE ME TODAY BY TELEPHONE. FROM OUR CONVERSATION AND FMVSS 571.222, I UNDERSTAND THAT SEAT SPACING SPECIFICATIONS OF SECTION 5.2, OF THE 222 STANDARDS, DO NOT APPLY TO SCHOOL BUSES AT 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS GVWR. IS THIS INTERPRETATION THE SAME AS THAT OF NHTSA? IS IT NHTSA'S RATIONALE THAT SEAT SPACING CRITERIA OF SECTION 5.2 IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BUSES UNDER 10,000 POUNDS BECAUSE THESE BUSES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SEAT BELTS TO RESTRAIN PASSENGERS?

SECTION 5.3.1 OF STANDARD 222 STATES THAT ANY CONTACTABLE SURFACE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED HEAD PROTECTION ZONE (S5.3.1.3) SHALL MEET THE HEAD FORM IMPACT (S5.3.1.2) AND HEAD FORM FORCE DISTRIBUTION (S5.3.1.3) REQUIREMENTS. DOES THIS INCLUDE WINDOW FRAMES? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW SUPPORTING STRUCTURE? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW GLASS?

FMVSS 222, SECTION 5.1.4, REQUIRES ALL SEATS WITH SEATS BEHIND THEM TO MEET THE FORWARD (SECTION 5.1.3) AND REARWARD (SECTION 5.1.4) SEAT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS OF STANDARD NUMBER 222?

THE REQUIREMENT FOR FORWARD FACING SEATS, SECTION 5.1 OF STANDARD 222, IS NOT INCLUDED FOR 10,000 POUNDS AND LESS GVWR SCHOOL BUSES. HOWEVER, IN THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEAT, THERE SEEMS TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE SCHOOL BUS SEATS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE FORWARD FACING, BUT MAY BE CANTED AS MUCH AS 45 DEGREES ARE MANUFACTURERS OF SCHOOL BUSES WHICH ARE LESS THAN 10,000 GVW CORRECT IF THEY POSITION THEIR SEATS AT ANY POSITION UP TO 45 DEGREES BETWEEN THE BUS LONGITUDINAL CENTERLINE AND A LINE PASSING ALONG THE FORWARD, UPPER EDGE OF THE SEAT CUSHIONS?

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS IS A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH MOTIVE POWER, EXCEPT A TRAILER, DESIGNED FOR CARRYING 10 PERSONS OR MORE PLUS THE DRIVER, SOLD OR INTRODUCED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR PURPOSES THAT INCLUDE CARRYING STUDENTS TO AND FROM SCHOOL OR RELATED EVENTS. COMMON CARRIERS IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION ARE EXCLUDED. IS THIS CONCEPT CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA'S INTERPRETATION?

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR REPLY TO MR. BYRON CRAMPTON, TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., CHEVY CHASE BUILDING, SUITE 1220, 5530 WISCONSIN AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015.

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

cc: BRYON CRAMPTON -- TBEA

ID: 77-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarification of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes "obsolete and ineffective" after August 15, 1977.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate, independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.

Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.

If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal III becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.

You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect to reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.

SINCERELY,

MAY 5, 1977

Our ref: TVB/MPJ

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571. Docket No. 74 14; Notice 08. March 24th 1977.

I would appreciate any clarification which you can give on the present status of FMVSS 216 and 208 in relation to the document reference on the heading.

On page 15937 of Notice 08 there are proposed three approaches to the amendment of Standard No. 208. Approach I and Approach III do not give us any problems in understanding, but there are certain parts of Approach II where we would be glad of clarification. In Section 2 of Approach II the date of August 15th 1977 would be changed to read August 31st 1980.

We are concerned particularly where this appears in S5.3. As we understand S5.3 in Federal Standard 208, as referenced, the rollover test is not compulsory if testing and conformity to FMVSS 216 has been carried out. Our understanding of S5.3 is that vehicles manufactured on or after August 15th 1977 would have to meet the requirements of S5.3 without the option of alternative certification under Standard No. 216. In other words that Standard 216 would at that date become obsolete and ineffective. Can you please confirm, or otherwise, the following statement:

1. As the Regulations stand at present vehicles manufactured on or after August 14th 1977 would be required to meet S5.3 of Standard 208.

2. As of August 15th 1977 the testing of vehicles to Standard No. 216 becomes irrelevant in all respects.

3. That this situation would stand if either Approach I or Approach III were taken as the amendement to Standard No. 208.

4. That no official decision on the amendement of 208 by means of any of the three approaches will be available before July 1st 1977.

We are not only interested in the applicability of Standard 208 with regard to occupant protection but also from the viewpoint of the use of either Standard 208 or Standard No. 216 in relation to body strength and in particular roof crush, if there is manufacturer or replacement equipment fitment of an opening roof unit.

It appears to us, as mentioned above, that testing for conformity to Standard No. 216 is likely to be irrelevant for any purpose after August 15th this year.

Any clarification you can give would be greatly appreciated.

T.V. Barlow Safety Engineer -- BRITAX (WINGARD) LTD.