ID: nht75-4.31

DATE: 11/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. G. Mannella for James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1975, requesting confirmation that a 1976 Ford Motor Company "deluxe continuous-loop seat belt system" satisfies the requirements of Section 7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of a front outboard seat belt assembly "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

In the NHTSA's September 25, 1972, letter to Renault to which you refer, the level of friction in the tongue is discussed and our position is stated that it must have a sufficiently low level to qualify the lap belt portion as "automatically adjustable." In your recent demonstration of the tongue frictions in the Ford 1976 "standard" and "deluxe" continuous loop seat belt systems to NHTSA personnel, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of those systems.

The other restriction concerns the use of manual and automatic tension relieving devices on the upper portion of continuous loop systems. In our letters of March 9, 1973, and March 27, 1975 (to General Motors), June 13, 1975 (to Chrysler Corporation), and September 5, 1975 (to Takata-Kojyo), the NHTSA has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso portion of seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." It is our view that the 1976 Ford deluxe continuous loop system does not have "an individually adjustable lap belt" within the meaning of Standard No. 208. In this system slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by the "window shade" tension relief device on the upper retractor is directly transferred to the lap belt, thus increasing the risk of submarining if a crash should occur. I would like to point out that issues related to tension relief devices are, however, still outstanding in an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32, Notice 1).

I am enclosing a report on "Comfort and Convenience Analysis of Advanced Restraint Systems" of August 1975. This study, conducted by the NHTSA Safety Research Laboratory on a number of different safety belt designs concludes that: "Several aspects of the systems caused difficulties or confusion, but the single-loop 'window-shade' feature most frequently produced problems." In light of our mutual desire to improve safety belt usage levels, I should also like to again recommend to your attention the results of the earlier NHTSA sponsored study "Sources and Remedies for Restraint System Discomfort and Inconveniences" by Man Factors, Inc., that I sent to your company in January 1975.

SINCERELY,

Ford Motor Company

November 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 208 with regard to the Performance Requirements for a 1976 Ford Motor Company Deluxe Continuous-Loop Seat Belt System

Reference 1: September 25, 1972 letter from Richard B. Dyson (NHTSA) to Mr. Francois Louis (Renault, Inc.)

Reference 2: March 27, 1975 letter from Robert L. Carter (NHTSA) to David E. Martin (General Motors)

On October 23, 1975 we met with you and members of your staff to review and discuss the subject deluxe seat belt system which is contained on the driver side of one of the two 1975 Pinto vehicles that we left for your further review. This continuous-loop belt system incorporates many customer convenience and comfort features which we believe would result in increased belt usage. We also believe we have interpreted correctly the performance requirements of Section 7.1.1 of Standard 208 in light of the two subject references. However, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance that the Administration agrees with our interpretation.

It is the interpretation of the Ford Motor Company, based on the referenced documents, that we as a manufacturer have designed the subject seat belt system to provide:

1. Excellent fit of the lap strap with "automatic adjustment" while donning, due to the constant stored position of the free sliding tongue as specified in Reference 1, which states:

"The characteristic to be avoided is the tendency of the buckle to trap an excessive amount of webbing on the lap belt side of the buckle. This tendency is overcome . . . if the buckle slides down of its own weight while the assembly is stored on the B-pillar so that the next occupant must lengthen the lap belt as he fastens the buckle".

2. A belt system having a tension reliever which, during normal usage of the belt system, will not result in "excessive slack" in the lap strap.

In most instances an intentional, overt act on the part of the user is required to transfer any slack from the shoulder strap to the lap strap without cancelling the tension reliever. Such cancelling permits the retractor spring to "automatically adjust" the lap strap. However, in the unlikely event that occupant action would force "excessive slack" into the lap strap without cancellation of the tension reliever, it would be expected that a conscientious user of seat belts would recognize that he has loosened the lap strap and would readjust the belt system by a simple manual cancellation of the tension reliever.

Ford will provide on the visor sleeve and in the owner's manual instructions to customers indicating the possibility of a loose lap strap and what to do to correct it, such as:

Avoid a loose lap strap; if for any reason you have created slack in your lap strap, lean forward to cancel the tension reliever which will permit the shoulder strap retractor spring to snug the lap strap automatically. Your normal motions while driving will then again activate the tension reliever.

Hence, our belt system with the tension reliever, if used as instructed ("during normal usage"), will, as specified in Reference 2, "automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack".

Ford also emphasizes that the free-sliding tongue overcomes many customer inconvenience items found in other systems by providing:

* convenient and consistently positioned parking of the tongue for easy access,

* freedom of movement without lock-up to extend webbing during donning due to the free sliding action,

* improved stowage of webbing since the retractor spring does not have to lift the tongue,

* no interference with seat adjustment.

An early response to this letter is urgently requested since this improved belt system is planned for production as a running change during the 1976 model year.

R. E. KIMBALL FOR

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: nht75-4.32

DATE: 04/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Brougham Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 17, 1975 request for an explanation of the seat belt assembly installation requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, as they apply to motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, and those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The standard requires that motor homes with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds be equipped with "passive" crash protection of a certain level (S4.3.1) or a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S4.3.2).

Motor homes with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with "passive" crach protection of a certain level (S4.2.1.1) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly at each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at each other designated seating position (S4.2.1.2).

At the front outboard designated seating position, you state that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides Type 1 seat belts. Unless the documentation, provided under Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568), states that modification of the Type 1 seat belts is required to meet Standard No. 208, it appears that the vehicle windshield header is not within the head impact area and that Type 1 seat belts meet the requirement.

You point out that some manufacturers may not provide as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations in the vehicle. We evaluated the proportion of this problem recently because of the possibility that occupants were not being provided with enough Type 1 seat belts. An informal but comprehensive survey at a recent trade show indicated that the problem is extremely limited. If you have information that this practice is becoming more common, please provide this office with more specific identification of manufacturer and model line.

We do appreciate your efforts to provide your purchasers with a high level of crash protection.

SINCERELY,

BROUGHAM

March 17, 1975

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

Brougham Industries, Inc. has been manufacturing Class C Motor Homes on chopped Van chassis with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1970. In compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, part 571; S208 paragraphs S 4.2, S 4.2.1 and S 4.2.1.2, Brougham has been installing type 2 seat belts in the forward outside passenger and driver seats where windshield header contact is possible. Type 1 seat belts have been installed in the aft seats to bring the total seats suitable for occupancy while moving to advertised sleeping capacity of the vehicle i.e., 6 to 8. This costs Brougham approximately $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 per coach.

Our competitive surveys indicate Winnebago, Mobile- Traveler, Midas, Fleetwood, Open Road and the majority of the competition are using type 1 seat belts that come with the forward control truck chassis for the driver and forward passenger. Aft passenger seat belt installations vary from all seats equipped with type 1 seat belts to all seats placard against use while the vehicle is in motion.

Brougham desires to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Safety Standards, but this added $ 80.00 to $ 100.00 cost per vehicle places the company at a disadvantage in the market place.

Please give me an official interpretation of this regulation as it applies to motor homes of 10,000 pounds and less and over 10,000 pounds so that I can incorporate the correct design criteria in our product.

John S. Knaur, Jr. Corporate Engineer

cc: CARLOS FLORES -- SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN.

ID: nht75-4.33

DATE: 04/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Director of Safety - CINCUSAREUR

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question whether a recent amendment of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, which modified the requirement for a seat belt warning system, would make legal the disconnection of warning systems which conformed to earlier requirements.

The answer to your question concerning vehicle owners is yes. Disconnection of safety devices is subject to a Federal statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), as recently amended (P.L. 93-492). For your information, I will summarize the relevant provisions on disconnection.

The Safety Act prohibits knowing disconnection of safety devices after the first retail sale, as well as before this sale, with three exceptions.

First, after December 26, 1974, a private party may disconnect any devices after sale. Generally, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may not knowingly disconnect safety devices except during repair of the vehicle.

Second, after December 26, 1974, any person, including a new car dealer, may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at any time after sale of 1974- or 1975-model passenger car. This does not include the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

Third, a dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock and continuous buzzer (but not the warning light) at the request of the first purchaser before sale of the new vehicle. This is the only exception to the rule that no person may disconnect any safety devices prior to sale. This does not include disconnection of the 8-second buzzer found on the newest 1975 models.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES ARMY, EUROPE and SEVENTH ARMY OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNAL

MARCH 3, 1975

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportaion

Reference the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 published in the 6 December 1974 issue of the Federal Register (Vol 39, No. 236).

Since the continuous or intermittent audible signal of one minute or more duration is no longer required, is it permissible for owners to disable these warning devices on vehicles so equipped.

LEONARD F. BLANDA Director of Safety

ID: nht75-4.34

DATE: 06/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

SINCERELY,

March 25, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking

The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

J. W. Kennebeck, Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

Petition for Rulemaking

of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Petitioners

TO

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

Petition for Rulemaking

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use.

Background:

In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit.

In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers.

NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected.

Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis.

A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system.

While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard.

However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM

1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled.

2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on".

Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law.

Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used:

Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read:

(1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B).

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 11, 1975

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp.

It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September.

Gerhard P. Riechel

Attorney

ID: nht75-4.35

DATE: 10/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's August 27, 1975, request for confirmation that a seat belt warning system that activates a 4- to 8-second warning light when the vehicle ignition is turned complies with the requirements of S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, although the warning system also activates the same warning light continuously when a separate circuit senses that the front seat belts are not fastened.

Volkswagen's understanding of S4.5.3.3 is correct. As we understand your description, the Volkswagen warning system does provide the automatic 4- to 8-second activation of a warning light called for in S4.5.3.3. This provision prohibits the use of an activation longer than the limits set forth in the standard.

The Volkswagen system provides a different and additional activation of the warning light when the seat belts are not fastened, using a separate circuit to monitor a set of conditions separate from those specified in the requirements of S4.5.3.3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider this activation (which can be longer than 8 seconds) to violate the limit on activation of the automatic reminder specified by the standard.

ID: nht75-4.36

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Takata Kojyo's ctober 1, 1975, questions whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly with non-detachable shoulder belt (1) may be labeled in accordance with S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, in only one location on either the upper torso or pelvic portion (A-I), (2) must be submitted (with the labeling modification) to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (A-II), (3) must be retested after a change is made to webbing length as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-I), and (4), if testing is not required, must be submitted to a test laboratory or other facility as the basis for continued certification to the standard (B-II).

One label on either portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly with non-detachable shoulder belt may be used to satisfy the requirement of S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers, to produce products covered by standards in compliance with those standards, as set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and to certify the products. It leaves the choice of testing methods up to the manufacturers. The NHTSA does not require retesting or submission to test laboratories as a basis for certification. A company like yours is free to choose any method that assures you that your products will conform if they are tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. This may take the form of tests, engineering calculations, or other means necessary to provide this assurance.

The answers given above pertain only to the Federal requirements for seat belts. It may be necessary to contact other regulatory authorities as to the effect of these changes under their regulations.

SINCERELY,

TAKATA KOJYO CO., LTD.

October 1, 1975

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

Re: Questions of alternation of labelling and webbing length on a safety seat belt assembly

We would like to appreciate sincerely for your previous kind and fine response to our questions of July 29, 1975.

We are very sorry to trouble you again but here are second times our questions underneath as follows referring the caption. So we shall be very pleased if you could let us have your instructions responsive to them.

(A) As you see and can realize a sketch in the figure attached here, in present system of a Type II seat belt assembly where both sections of webbing restraining upper torso and pelvic are sewed together with a tongue to result in no releasing of it from them, each of fabric labels indicating date of production, maker name, model expression and so on is stitched respectively on the torso section and pelvic section of webbing.

Our questions

(A-1) Can it be permitted that any one of above two fabric labels is deleted (for example; One for upper torso section will be expected)?

(A-2) In present usual case, we have been submitted from U.S.T.C. the test approval on a seat belt assembly attached with two labels. Even if above (A-1) is realized, are we required to submit new sample to the authorizer of U.S.T.C. and AAMVA (American Association of Moter Vehicle administrators in each State) in advance?

(B) In the case that in connection with the above seat belt assembly, we wish to alter the webbing length on it,

(B-1) Are we required to take a new approval test additionally for the assembly sample provided with altered length of webbing?

(B-2) If no new approval test be required at above (B-1), can we be permitted to do it only with submitting the new altered sample to the test authorizer of U.S.T.C., E.T.L. or so on?

ALTERATION we wish:

FROM:

TO:

upper torso restraint webbing, 1130+/- 5(Illegible) mm no change pelvic restraint webbing, 1100+/- 5(Illegible) mm 1130+/-5(Illegible) mm

We would be very happy to have your yes or no in so earlier time you could.

Mitsuru Masada

October 1, 1975 75-TD-424 attached to,

(Graphics ommitted)

ID: nht75-4.37

DATE: 06/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction - Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is in further response to your phone call to Mr. David Soule, concerning the proper wording of captions above emergency doors and/or exits in school buses.

While we do not consider the phrase "Emergency Door" to be synonymous with "Emergency Exit" (we do not believe push-out windows or other nondoor emergency exits are appropriately marked "Emergency Door"), we would not consider a bus failing to conform to Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, if its emergency doors were marked "Emergency Door." Emergency exits other than doors, however, must be marked "Emergency exit." National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard's effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.

I might point out that a Federal Register notice published February 26, 1975, proposing requirements for emergency doors in school buses would require that such exits be designated "Emergency Door."

ID: nht75-4.38

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1975, asking whether paragraph S5.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) permits the words "Emergency Exit" to be placed above the emergency door in a school bus, or whether they must be within six inches of the emergency door release mechanism. You argue that placing the nomenclature above the door provides a more prominent identification of the exit than does placing it within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

We believe the interpretation of S5.5.1 which you suggest is appropriate when applied to rear door emergency exists in school buses. We have not previously considered school buses containing this type of emergency exit labeling to fail to conform to the standard. In addition, our recent proposal regarding school bus emergency exits (39 FR 8569, copy enclosed) would specifically require emergency exit labeling of this type.

YOURS TRULY,

February 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

A question of interpretation has risen with regard to FMVSS 217. Paragraph S5.5.1 of that standard reads in pertinent part: "Each pushout window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit", followed by concise operating instructions, located within six inches of the release mechanism. . .". The question is, must the words "Emergency Exit" be within six inches of the operating mechanism or is it sufficient to provide operating instructions within six inches of the release mechanism with the "Emergency Exit" marking shown in another and more prominent location?

We would point out that if the "Emergency Exit" designation must be within six inches of the operating mechanism, it is often not visible to occupants not in the immediate vacinity of the exit. This is because of the lettering size limit imposed by the spacial requirements of being within six inches of the operating mechanism.

Apparently there is some confusion regarding this matter since several states have asked our interpretation concerning it. Before FMVSS 217 became effective, most states required "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" in letters at least two inches high immediately above each emergency exit. This system is well liked by those in the industry and, as shown in the attached photo, provides prominent identification of the exit for most occupants in the bus. We feel this method of providing emergency exit identification and operating instructions meets the requirements of S5.5.1 and would like to continue using this system.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby

Staff Engineer

ID: nht75-4.39

DATE: 11/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1975, in which you inquire whether the emergency exit decal installations shown in photographs enclosed with your letter comply with paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release."

It appears from the photographs you provided that some of the emergency exit markings may not comply with some of the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217. Our specific comments are listed below:

1. Figure 1 - The emergency exit marking for the rear door appears to meet the requirements. It is to be noted, however, that revised requirements for emergency exits on school buses have been proposed which may differ from the current requirements.

2. Figures 2 and 3 - The emergency exit marking for the side push-out windows does not appear to meet the requirements of S5.5.2. Both the seat back and the adjacent seated occupant partially obstruct the marking so it is not legible from the adjoining seat or the aisle location.

3. Figure 4 - The emergency exit marking for the side door appears to meet the requirements.

4. Figure 5 - The marking for the rear window emergency exit that is adjacent to a davenport type seat with unknown seating capacity appears to contain two release mechanisms (laterally spaced at each edge) and an identical marking for each latch mechanism. We cannot determine if occupants would obstruct these markings from standees if all positions in the davenport type seat were occupied.

We also question whether the instructions are complete because it cannot be determined if both latches must be released before the window can be pushed out.

5. Figure 6 - The emergency exit marking for the transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

6. Figure 7 - The center rear emergency door which contains instructions for unlatching the opening of the door in the form of an arrow only per the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 217, Docket 75-3: Notice 1 does not meet the present requirements for emergency exit identification. The specific content of the emergency exit marking for school buses has not yet been finalized by this agency and we, therefore, cannot comment until a final rule on the proposal has been published in the Federal Register.

7. Figures 8 and 9 - The emergency exit marking for another transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

It is emphasized that these comments are for your information only and are based on the contents of your photographs. This agency cannot make a final judgment concerning compliance of a bus from photographs of components. The determination of compliance or noncompliance with FMVSS No. 217 can be made only by the actual inspection and test of a complete vehicle.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

September 23, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: (1) Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert C. Luce, N41-21 MPa, CIR 1392 dated August 5, 1975

(2) Letter from W. G. Milby to Frank Burns (Berndt) dated August 11, 1975

As you know, reference (1) alleges non-compliance of the test vehicle with respect to FMVSS 217 in two areas:

1. The emergency exit signs do not contain concise operating instructions as required by S5.5.1.

2. The emergency exit signs are not legible to occupants seated in the adjoining seat or standing in the aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat as required by S5.5.2.

While we do not agree with these allegations, we do wish that there be no question of our compliance with any NHTSA regulations as explained in reference (2).

Therefore, please find enclosed photographs of alternate emergency exit decals that we are proposing to use in lieu of the type used on the test bus of reference (1). In addition are proposed decals for other types of emergency exits. An explanation of each photo follows.

Figure 1 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1).

Figure 2 - Side pushout window same as on test bus of reference (1) with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by standing occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 3 - Same installation as in figure 2 but without occupant. Complete text of decal is:

"EMERGENCY EXIT TO OPEN PULL HANDLE - PUSH OUT WINDOW"

Figure 4 - Side emergency door with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 5 - Center rear emergency window with occupant seated in adjacent davenport type seat.

Figure 6 - Transit sliding type window with pushout feature. Although not shown in photo, we would propose to use this decal on both panes of glass.

Figure 7 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1). As we understand it, arrow type decal is only operating instruction required by proposed amendment to FMVSS 217, Docket 75-3; Notice 1 as published in Federal Register of February 28, 1975. In addition, we understand this proposal would require an identification decal reading "EMERGENCY DOOR" both inside and outside immediately above the door in letters at least two inches high.

Figure 8 - Another transit sliding type window with pushout feature with occupant seated in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 9 - Same as figure 8 but without seated occupant.

Please review each of these proposed decal installations and offer us an opinion whether or not they meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 regarding:

1. Concise operating instructions per S5.5.1.

2. Legibility per S5.5.2.

Your early response to this letter will be greatly appreciated so that we can make any necessary changes.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-4.4

DATE: 05/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dairy Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dairy Equipment's April 3, 1975 request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a trailer in cases where used components from an existing vehicle are involved.

In response to a similar request from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently prepared a comprehensive discussion of this subject, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

YOURS TRULY,

April 3, 1975

David E. Wells, Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation

Confirming the phone conversation on March 31, 1975 between Mr. Kazmierazack of the D.O.T. and Mr. Ehinger of our company regarding the rebuilding of used trailers, Mr. Kazmierzack stated that we can obtain an official ruling by writing to your office.

We have customers who want to replace the tank of an existing semi-trailer tank motor vehicle utilizing the under carriage frame, suspension, axles, wheels, and tires from the old semi-trailer. Can you confirm to us in writing Mr. Kazmierzack's verbal approval to Mr. Ehinger that this type of repair does not incur any obligation to comply with current motor vehicle safety standards? We intend to retain the vehicle identification number, make, and model year.

Thank you for your consideration.

DAIRY EQUIPMENT COMPANY

Jim Koester Product Engineer