ID: 17539.wkm

Mr. C. Thomas Terry
Director, Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. John Womack of this office in which you stated that General Motors (GM) is considering the use of dual vacuum hoses between the engine manifold and the booster unit to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Passenger car brake systems.

You stated that the hoses would be connected to the manifold at two separate locations and to two separate non-removable check valves at the booster unit. Thus, failure of one hose would not affect system performance since the other hose would continue to provide vacuum to the booster unit. The check valves would prevent loss of vacuum from the booster in the event of failure of one of the hoses. You asked our agreement that in such a system, only one hose at a time need be disconnected when conducting the failed power-assist test of Standard No. 135, specifically subparagraphs S7.11.3(g) and (h). We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation but, for the reasons discussed below, we do not agree.

Subsection S7.11.4 establishes the applicable performance requirement as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10 + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided (emphasis added).

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

The agency does not consider the use of hoses from the engine manifold to the booster unit as the primary source of power for the brake power-assist system. The power or medium used to operate the brake power assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power assist unit regardless of the number of vacuum hoses used to transmit the vacuum. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. That is what the failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate, that is, the standard seeks to ensure that in the event of loss of power assist, the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed brake pedal force of 500 Newtons.

In this test, therefore, all hoses from the engine intake manifold to the booster unit are disconnected and the system is depleted of vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power assist unit to the vacuum source. This is not to imply that the engine is turned off for this portion of the testing, but rather that the source of power, the engine manifold, is disconnected from the power assist unit. I note that with respect to S7.7, Stops with Engine Off, the difference is that residual vacuum remains in the system to be used to power the brake assist unit. For the inoperative brake power assist test, the system and any subsystems must be depleted.

A "backup" system as provided in S7.11.3(h) would be a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that would automatically activate in the event of failure of the primary power source. Thus, the dual hose system you described in your letter would not constitute a backup system. Rather, it would be no more than components of the primary power source.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:105#135

ID: nht88-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-9-88, TO NHTSA, FROM KAREN WHITEHEAD, OCC2019

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you sought information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213; copy enclosed). You provided a diagram of your back and head rest attachment which would a ccompany a child's car toddler seat. You noted that your device will allow a child's head and shoulders to be supported in an up-right position and that the back rest is anchored by slipping the motor vehicle's seat belt through elastic loops by the bac k rest and around the toddler seat. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You should be aware that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, and you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, apply to the child restraint system before its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories, s uch as your back and head rest, may be added to a child restraint system after its first sale.

This general rule is, however, limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any devi se or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ."

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with Standard No. 213 might be affected by adding your headrest. For example, under section S5.7, all child restraints are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements under standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your letter indicates that you are aware of these requirements and that your product would be in compliance with these requirements. Also, child restraint s recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds

must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your back and head rest by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or any other provision in the standard, then these entities would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of t he Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108. Each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a seperate violation of section 108.

Since an owner of a child restraint is not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), he or she is not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design specified in the safety standards. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntaril y ensure that your back and head restraint would not render any such elements inoperative.

You should also be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, you would be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor ve hicle safety. If you as manufacturer or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options was chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. Therefore, you could not charge owners of the back and head restraint for remedy if the device were first purchased less t han eight years before the notification campaign.

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

ENCLOSURE

ID: 7764

Mr. G. Thomas Owens
Senior Engineering Representative
Aetna
Post Office Box 26283
Richmond, VA 23260-6283

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104; Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113; Standard 115; Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes); Standards 119 and 120; Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes); Standard 124; Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 205; Standards 207 through 210; Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 217; Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 220; Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard 222; Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:571 d:11/3/92

ID: static1

Milford R. Bennett, Director
North American Operations Safety
Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm.

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[e]ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:7/3/95 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b). S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) refer to vehicles manufactured at different times.

ID: aiam4500

"Dear Ms. Gelburd: This is a response to your letter of January 12 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to 'cushion and insulate the child.' The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will 'contravene or compromise' Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to 'determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction.' Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' as: ...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle. In determining whether an item is an 'accessory,' the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an 'accessory,' and, therefore, is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad. Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.) If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would 'render inoperative' a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was 'rendered inoperative.' Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect. However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation. Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 'Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic,' D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems. I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a 'warning label' to the product. Please understand that this explanation is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5134

"Dear Mr. Langlais: This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquir requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR 551.45, Service of Process, Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions. As our earlier letter explained, 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service. With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0875

Dear Mr. Morita: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1972, to Mr. Jerome A Palisi, requesting information concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to various components of vehicle occupant compartments made of plastic or plastic and metal.; The components that must meet the requirements of the standard ar listed in paragraph S4.1. Some of the components you have asked about are covered by the standard and others are not. Dashboards and instrument panels are considered to be 'front panels' and are therefore covered. Steering wheels normally are 'designed to absorb energy ... in the event of a crash' and, in that case, are covered. The components not covered specifically are handles of handbrakes, meter housings, steering column covers, console boxes, and handle knobs to open and shut windows. These components, such as console boxes, will nevertheless be covered to the extent that they contain materials 'that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' We cannot identify what you mean by 'change lever knobs' and, therefore, we cannot comment on this component.; You also ask whether finished or unfinished components should be teste according to the procedures described in S5 of the standard, and what kind of specimens should be prepared for plastic components with metal insertions. The standard does not apply to intermediate or unfinished materials, and compliance testing by the Government is carried out with components removed from motor vehicles that have been marketed. Test specimens should be prepared according to S5.2.1 of the standard regardless of the materials that are present in a given component.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0370

Dear Mr. Mizuno: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning coverin material for seats and door trim that is used solely to protect the interior of the vehicle during transportation from the manufacturer to the dealer. You have asked whether this covering material is required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.; Whether the material must comply with the standard depends upon whethe it is likely to be used in a significant number of cases by the purchaser as part of the motor vehicle. You have stated that the only purpose of the material is 'to insure the delivery of a car in which the interior is in good condition.' It is important that this intent be carried out in practice, if the material is not to be considered vehicle interior material subject to the standard. Two criteria which would be considered in determining whether the material is covered by the standard are (1) whether it is placed in the vehicle in a way that its use after purchase is unlikely, and (2) what steps the manufacturer has taken to see that it is removed before sale to the purchaser.; We cannot make a final determination as to whether such material mus meet the requirements without more information, particularly with respect to the questions noted above. However, if Nissan does take appropriate steps to ensure that such material will not be used as a seat cover by the purchaser, then the material would not be required to meet the requirements of the Standard.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0676

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, in which you as whether, under the procedures of paragraph S5.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' you may interpret the reference to materials having a 'thickness' exceeding 1/2 inch to mean the 'design thickness.' You request this interpretation because it appears that some materials having a design thickness of 1/2 inch or less may increase in thickness due to vibration or moisture absorbtion. In cutting these materials down to the 1/2-inch thickness for testing purposes, you say a fluffy surface is created which burns at a much higher rate than the material's original surface.; For purposes of testing for compliance with the standard, manufacturer are free to deviate from the procedures specified in the standard as long as the results they obtain can be correlated to results obtained using the test procedures of the standard. The test procedures specified in S5.2.1 are not, however, intended to result in a changing of the texture of a material's surface when the material is cut to the specified size. Consequently, while we cannot approve of the interpretation you request, we would consider a slight deviation in the thickness of tested materials from the 1/2-inch specification, in order to preserve the original surface of the material, to be consistent with the standard's test procedure. I point out further that the NHTSA is aware of the problems you have encountered, and is presently considering amendments to the standard which would alter this result.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5585

"Dear Ms. Ward: This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following u on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and 'over-the-road type coaches' (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses 'are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches.' That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to 'buses,' and those that apply to 'school buses.' Since a 'school bus' is a type of 'bus' under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to 'school buses' in addition to those that apply to 'buses.' A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our 'bus' standards, but not our 'school bus' standards. We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards. If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";