ID: 77-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/77

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 23 and July 8, 1977, letters asking several questions about the effect of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, on the construction of school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) below 10,000 pounds.

You first ask whether there are any seat performance requirements for the rearmost seat after April 1978. The rear seat has been exempted from the forward and rearward performance requirements of the standard. This exemption was possible since there are no passengers seated behind the rear seat who could impact with it in a crash situation. Therefore, the rear seat may be positioned against the rear panel if it does not protrude into the emergency exit zone.

In a second question, you ask whether the head protection zone requirements (S5.3), as well as the requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, and S5.1.5, are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less since these buses are required to have seat belts. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5(b) of the standard states that all of the above sections are applicable to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.

In connection with your question concerning the head protection zone requirements, you submitted sketches of the sidewall and roof structure of one of your buses. In that sketch you depict a 50th percentile adult and show the proximity of that adult with the sidewall-roof structure. You question whether a portion of the bus structure above the window is part of the roof structure subject to the head protection zone requirements.

The NHTSA has determined that the portion of the interior skin that is depicted by the diagonal line connecting the horizontal roof line to the vertically contoured line representing the sidewall is part of the roof structure and must comply with the requirements of the standard for head protection.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC.

JULY 8, 1977

TIMOTHY A. HOYT SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ADVICE, JUNE 29, 1977.

ENCLOSED ARE SKETCHES OF THE COLLINS SUPERBUS INTERIOR SKIN IN RELATION TO A 50 PERCENTILE PERSON SEATED NEAR THE WINDOW. SKETCH A SHOWS THE PERSON IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION, SKETCH B SHOWS THIS PERSON IN A MORE NORMAL POSITION WITH THE BUS LOADED. DO YOU FEEL THAT THE INTERIOR SKIN ABOVE THE WINDOWS, AND NEAREST TO THE OCCUPANTS' HEAD, POSES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANT IF THE SKIN IS NOT PADDED?

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

ID: 77-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: J. R. Green

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United States concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.

We have received considerable information regarding the effects of foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on "selective yellow" headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.

It is also true that while the original intent in using yellow headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).

Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AUGUST 18, 1977

James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood, California 90262

Dear Mr. Green:

In his letter of June 16, 1977, our Mr. Driver, Director of the Office of Crash Avoidance, commented that although the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard "is generally in accordance with standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps."

This should not be interpreted as an opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require sealed beam headlamps. While there is no such requirement per se in the text of the standard, Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J579a Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965, and SAE Standard J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966. Compliance of headlamps with these standards is required, whether as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: 77-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 8, 1977, letter asking where a school bus sidewall ends and the bus roof begins for purposes of complying with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

You enclosed a sketch detailing the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have a section of the bus labeled "A" where the sidewall and roof structure join. You have called this a quarter panel section. However, from your sketch, it appears that this panel is divided into two segments, with one extending upward from the window a short distance and connecting with a second more rounded section that continues over the top of the bus. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that your interpretation that the section labeled "A" need not comply with the requirements of the standard is incorrect. The agency concludes that the portion of the "quarter panel" that is a continuation of the bus sidewall is exempted from the requirements. However, the rounded portion of the panel that is merely a continuation of the roof must comply with the standard.

In your other sketch you present a roof drawing of a larger school bus. The agency has determined that the section you have labeled "roof section" is the only section of the drawing subject to the head protection zone requirements of the standard.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

June 9, 1977 Dictated June 8, 1977

Roger Tilton Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Relating to our phone conversation to-day pertaining to the "head impact zone confines" I pose for you the following question:

Q. Using the simple line sketches enclosed, we request an interpretation of that area "not occupied by bus sidewall"?

It is our interpretation that the area marked "A" is considered to be a part of the sidewall section and would thus be excluded from the impact zone confines.

In that production dates for the post-April standards are rapidly approaching, we respectfully request a prompt response with your interpretation.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice-President

BIG BUS - CONVENTIONAL FULL SIZE

SMALL BUS - VAN CONVERSION TYPE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Cantey; Hanger; Gooch; Munn; & Collins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client, a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.

Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities as prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, Certification) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of "alterer," as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.

It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit would alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.

You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.

You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, as defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 et seq.).

If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

CANTEY, HANGER, GOOCH, MUNN & COLLINS

March 1, 1977

David Fay Engineering Systems Staff National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our firm represents a company which manufactures and distributes auto air-conditioning units and which sometimes installs such units along with cruise control devices on automobiles before they are sold for the first time at retail. This company is most desirous of complying with all applicable Federal Rules and Regulations governing their area of activity.

Our attention has been drawn to 15 USCS Section 1403, entitled "Certification of vehicle or equipment as to conformity with safety standards." This statute seems to require every manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to certify that each item of such equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and that such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of the container in which such item is delivered. The Regulations do not appear to address manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment unless such equipment is the subject of one of the safety standards set forth in the Regulations. The statute is not so narrowly drawn and our question is whether we must comply with it in the event that there are no safety standards which apply to air conditioners.

Our next question concerns Part 566 of Title 49, Transportation Regulations. Part 566 requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, to submit identifying information and a description of the items they produce to the Administrator, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. After reading the safety standards set forth in the Title 49 Regulations, I was unable to find any which would apply to air conditioners, and I would like for you to confirm this for me.

Of perhaps greater importance than the problems listed above, is the one which arises out of Part 567 and 568 of said Title 49, Transportation Regulations. The language therein, taken literally, is very broad; nevertheless, it is not without ambiguity. 567.2 states that this part applies to manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles, to which one or more standards are applicable. This statement creates two issues:

1. Is a company which installs automobile air conditioners and cruise control units a manufacturer of motor vehicles?

2. Are there any standards which would apply to them?

Another question we have is whether or not the installation of these devices would subject the installer to the requirements imposed upon manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I was under the impression that the special rules governing manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages were designed to cover cement trucks, campers and the like; however, the literal reading of the definition might cover the installation of the accessories in question, and we would like to get your opinion on this subject.

Finally, we are concerned with 567.7, entitled "Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles." We would like your opinion as to whether or not the installation of either an automobile air conditioner or a cruise control device, or both, would constitute an alteration sufficient to require the type of label specified in this Regulation.

If such a label is required, to what extent must the gross vehicle weight be altered before the modified values provided in the forms specified in Sections 567.4(g) (3) and (5) apply? In that regard, we would like to know if the gross vehicle weight "rating" means something different than the gross vehicle weight. It occurs to me that the weight "rating" may refer to certain categories of variously weighted vehicles. For example, vehicles over 5,000 pounds and under 10,000 pounds, or over 10,000 pounds or under 15,000 pounds, for each of which classes of vehicles a different safety standard might perhaps apply.

We believe that the statutes and Regulations above referred to constitute all of those to which we might possibly be subject. If there are any others, of which you are aware, we would appreciate your calling same to our attention.

We are awaiting your response before undertaking the task of having special labels printed up, installed, etc., and would appreciate it if you would respond as soon as you are able.

Noel C. Ice

cc: JOE BURKETT -- AMC AIR CONDITIONING CO.

ID: 77-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus manufacturer can sell a bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the handicapped that is not built in compliance with the new school bus safety standards.

The new school bus definition to which you refer in your letter was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the direction of Congress. The definition requires that all buses carrying more than 10 persons to or from school or related events (other than common carriers in urban transportation) must be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

The buses to which you refer transport children to and from private schools and also transport the handicapped. There is no distinction between private school and public school for purposes of the application of the school bus safety requirements. Accordingly, a bus designed to carry more than 10 persons to and from a private school must be constructed in accordance with the requirements and must be equipped with the lights, paint, and signs of a school bus. The same situation exists for buses designed for the transportation of the handicapped if they carry more than 10 persons to and from school or related events.

In conclusion, a manufacturer is not permitted to sell a bus designed to transport school children to and from school and related events, unless that bus is contructed in accordance with the requirements. Schools may purchase, however, small vehicles (fewer than 10 passenger) that are not built according to the requirements. These vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 7, 1977

Joseph Levin, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is a request for interpretation of the re-definition of the term "school bus" and how it affects current Connecticut statutes. The recent amendment to the definition of "school bus" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3 defines a school bus as a bus that is sold or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related events, but does not include a bus designed or sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Connecticut legislation, specifically Sections 14-275a and 14-275b (copies enclosed) of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Laws, Title 14, requires the use of a standard school bus. Section 14-275a does not mandate that private schools must provide a school bus when transporting students under the age of 21 years to and from school, and Section 14-275b exempts the use of a standard school bus when transporting the physically handicapped, providing such vehicle has been approved for such purpose by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

It is my understanding that because of the recent re-definition of a school bus, the manufacturers of school bus bodies and manufacturers of reconstructed van-type vehicles will no longer sell a vehicle to a prospective customer unless that vehicle meets all the requirements of a school bus, including construction, flashing lights, color, and appropriate labeling. Persons responsible for transporting private school students and the handicapped are now restricted from purchasing vehicles other than school buses because of the manufacturers' policies concerning the sale of vehicles used to transport students to and from school.

The interpretation I am requesting is: Can a manufacturer sell a vehicle in Connecticut other than a school bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the physically handicapped, if the manufacturer is aware of its intended use? Your attention and response to this question is appreciated.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

[Legislation Omitted]

ID: 77-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John L. O'Connell -- Pupil Transportation Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14))

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus manufacturer can sell a bus to a private school or to a contractor for use in the transportation of the handicapped that is not built in compliance with the new school bus safety standards.

The new school bus definition to which you refer in your letter was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the direction of Congress. The definition requires that all buses carrying more than 10 persons to or from school or related events (other than common carriers in urban transportation) must be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

The buses to which you refer transport children to and from private schools and also transport the handicapped. There is no distinction between private school and public school for purposes of the application of the school bus safety requirements. Accordingly, a bus designed to carry more than 10 persons to and from a private school must be constructed in accordance with the requirements and must be equipped with the lights, paint, and signs of a school bus. The same situation exists for buses designed for the transportation of the handicapped if they carry more than 10 persons to and from school or related events.

In conclusion, a manufacturer is not permitted to sell a bus designed to transport school children to and from school and related events, unless that bus is constructed in accordance with the requirements. Schools may purchase, however, small vehicles (fewer than 10 passenger) that are not built according to the requirements. These vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of the requirements.

ID: 77-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

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

TO: Alderson Research Laboratories Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Alderson Research Laboratory's July 15, 1977, request for confirmation that Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert specified in drawing No. ATD 3250-2. The agency proposed the addition of leak test specifications to the drawing in August 1975 (40 CFR 33462, August 5, 1975) but they were not made final (42 CFR 7148, February 7, 1977).

Your interpretation that Part 572 neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert is correct. The language you cite from the preamble to our February 1977 rulemaking is misleading in suggesting the requirement for venting. The agency more clearly described the requirement in its most recent amendment of Part 572 (42 FR 34299, July 5, 1977), stating that the Part does not "specify an abdominal sealing specification." Agency testing demonstrated conforming results both with and without venting (DOT HS-020875) and sees no reason to control this aspect of dummy design.

SINCERELY,

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.

July 15, 1977

Stanley Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crashworthiness

Subject: Abdominal Inserts, 49CFR Part 572

Notice 04 of Docket 73-8 finalized rulemaking on the Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and, in so doing, retracted an earlier proposed change which would have required the abdominal insert of the dummy to be sealed and leak free. It is our clear understanding that this retraction merely reverted the insert back to its original form, which imposed no rigid requirements for either sealing or venting of this component. Indeed, the original specifications for this insert were virtually universally interpreted as leaving the question of venting or not venting entirely discretionary as long as the Part 572 component calibration tests were satisfied.

In conversation with several of our customers, we are informed that widespread opinion exists that notice 04 now absolutely requires the abdominal insert to be vented, despite the fact that the manufacturing drawing (ATD-3250-2) for this component now, as before, provides no definition for any breathing vent. We think that the reason for this belief is based on the wording of the preamble discussion of Notice 04 which states ". . .the leak test has been removed from the drawings and the vent is retained." We respectfully suggest that the addition of the words " as an option" at the end of this phrase would have reenforced the clarity of the retraction of the proposed sealed only specification. We are, accordingly, requesting from the NHTSA a firm declarative statement as to whether or not the NHTSA's current specifications still permit discretionary venting or sealing of the abdominal insert.

Robert Rubenstein Chief Engineer

HUMANOID SYSTEMS DIVISION OF HUMANETICS, INC.

June 3, 1977

Stanley Backaitis NHTSA

We are in the process of revising our test equipment to take into account the new revision of the Part 572 specifications. In this connection, we want to inquire about the added provision that the neck pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T = 123 ms."

We would presume that this means that the minimum time for reversal should be 123 ms, since otherwise the variability of the honeycomb would make this an impossible standard to meet. Can you confirm our interpretation, or if we are in error, could you give us a tolerance on the 123 ms?

Samuel W. Alderson President

ID: 77-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

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

TO: Humanoid Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 3, 1977, request for confirmation that @ 572.7(b) of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), specifies a minimum time period during which the pendulum used in testing may not reverse direction rather than an exact time.

Your interpretation is correct. The specification that the pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T=123 ms" means that reverse travel must not occur earlier than 123 milliseconds after chordal displacement begins. The agency believes that this language can be improved and intends to clarify it at the next opportunity.

ID: 77-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/77

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states are preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which regulates maximum seat spacing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Section 103(d):

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.

The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandate minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.

The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states as broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 29, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification regarding the seat spacing requirements of FMVSS 222 vs the seat spacing specifications which have been or are in the process of being adopted by the states.

FMVSS 222 specifies a maximum seat spacing of 20 inches in S5.2.1 measured from the SRP forward to the rear surface of the next seat or barrier.

Some states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, minimum knee space dimensions from the front of a seat back measured forward to the back of the next seat back. As might be expected, in the specifications which have been adopted so far, there is a lack of uniformity. For example, one specification calls for "a minimum of 24 inches knee space measured horizontally at the seat cushion level at the transverse center line of the seat." This requires 24 inches knee space in the area of the seat back which is recessed for knees but allows less than 24" around the periphery of the seat frame. Another specification requires "24 inches minimum knee space measured across the full width of the seat back." With the latter specification, using a seat back pad recessed in the knee area, the 20 inches maximum spacing requirement of S5.2.1 can easily be exceeded in the recessed area when seats are positioned to get at least 24 inches knee space at the closet point between two seats.

The following is exerpted from the preamble to FMVSS 222 published in the Federal Register of January 27, 1976.

"Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat spacing, other than one identical to the Federal requirement for maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is preempted under @@ 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d)."

Based on this discussion it is our understanding that states are preempted from adopting any school bus seat spacing specification which differs in any way from the requirements of FMVSS 222; i.e. a maximum of 20 inches from the SRP.

Is this understanding correct? If so, we believe it would be helpful if the NHTSA published a bulletin to this effect to the states. This would prevent the adoption of specifications by the states which conflict with FMVSS 222.

Please be assured there is considerable current activity in this area by the states and a solution to this dilemma is urgently needed.

Your early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services