ID: aiam5436

Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your facsimile transmittal lette to me of July 19, 1994. Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard. In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR. Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape. In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht93-8.29

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from Joe Takacs to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-9173)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable:

1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209.

2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209.

With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position ...." That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209.

S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable.

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

ID: 9173

Mr. Joe Takacs
Director of Engineering
Kinedyne Corporation
3701 Greenway Circle
Lawrence, KS 66046-5442

Dear Mr. Takacs:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable:

1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209.

2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209.

With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209.

S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222#209 d:11/23/93

ID: nht71-1.45

DATE: 12/02/71

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING GENERAL MOTORS TECHNICAL CENTER

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your petition of September 10, 1971, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials," be amended by (1) substituting a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate presently specified in the standard and (2) making certain specified changes in the test cabinet and test procedure. For the reasons stated below, your request for a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate is hereby denied.

The arguments you offer as a basis for your petition are stated below, and are followed by our responses. Generally, your position is that while you admit that "the available data may provide justification for a standard on flammability," you claim there is no evidence in the docket that supports the basis for, or establishes any safety benefit of, a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. You argue also that the number of non-fuel fires is too small to warrant a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. Finally, you claim that using materials having a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate would add an average retail cost of $ 10 to vehicles you manufacture, which cannot be justified under your analysis of the safety need. You indicate, however, that your present materials will or can be made to meet a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate.

"The 4-inch-per-minute burn rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provided a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle in the event fire should occur." At no point in your petition do you present any data that shows that the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate is unreasonable or excessive from a safety standpoint. Moreover, despite your statement to the contrary, the Administration believes there is sufficient data on the number and degree of non-fuel fires in motor vehicles to justify the 4-inch-per-minute rate.

Much of the argument in your petition concerns a variability in the burn rate of materials you have tested. You apparently maintain that the variability makes it difficult for a manufacturer to know whether or not the material he uses in fact complies with the standard. The Administration realizes that the burn rate of any particular material may vary. This fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of any test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by raising the overall burn rate requirement. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials.

You also argue that, under the specified test procedure, there may also be variations in burn rate results caused by inconsistencies of interpretation.

You provide data showing that GM and its suppliers obtained different results using adjacent material on the same roll. We find this argument to be without merit. General Motors is completely free to specify to its suppliers the method which it considers satisfactory under the standard to measure burn rates, or to test the materials themselves. This is no less than NHTSA itself does when it monitors test laboratories that are contracted to perform compliance tests.

You also provide data showing the effects of aging on a specific fire retardant additive. The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicate that it is necessary to use flame-retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics in order to comply with the standard.

Finally, while you present arguments against the retention of a 4-inch-per-minute rate, your petition lacks significant substantive arguments for the 12-inch-per-minute rate you wish to substitute. At no point do you show how a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate will allow sufficient time for the driver to stop the vehicle, and if necessary for occupants to leave it, before injury occurs. Based on the Administration's findings, such a 12-inch-per-minute rate will not provide the necessary escape time.

Your request for changes in the test cabinet and test procedure is presently being evaluated, and you will be notified when a decision concerning them has been made.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terrence S. Lockman -- Investigator, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Attorneys-at-Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM TERRENCE, S. LOCKMAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10855)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lockman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a "motor vehicle" and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manuf actured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that "At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway."

I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Couns el for General Law.

Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would h ave applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach.

We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act n1 defined a motor vehicle as "a v ehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. Th e literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for "road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning." It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone "at the time in question." Construction-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With r egard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear.

n1 In 1994, the Safety Act was recodified, without substantial change, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. The motor vehicle" definition is set forth in section 30102(a).

Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSS s. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1989 Versa Sweeper has "Indefinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour. . ." It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A V ersa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been.

You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that "street sweepers" -- that are motor vehicles -- are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), required open-bodie d light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-5.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TO: STEPHEN L. OESCH -- DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TITLE: ASKING FOR RULING: A DEVICE TO MAKE REACHING FOR BELT/TONGUE EASIER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/06/87, TO BINICHI DOI, FROM ERIKA Z ZONES, REDBOOK A30 (4) STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Mr. Oesch,

The enclosed sketch shows a device installed at the shoulder-anchor portion of a safety belt system which positions the tongue at an easier to reach location than the normal on-door-pillar position.

The "arm" (called "belt reacher" in the sketch) is made of material which does not interfere with the general safety/comfort of passengers and is installed semi-rotationally around the shoulder-anchor point so that it can hold the tongue in a convenient position for reaching. At the same time, it complies with the movement of the belt for its original protective function.

Your kind consideration and a prompt as possible ruling as to the installation of such a device in vehicles offered with this type of safety belt system will be appreciated by us.

Very truly yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 10253

Mr. Bruce Monnie
Senior Designer
Advanced Design Associates
Tigard, OR 97223

Dear Mr. Monnie:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the consumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, such as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208#209#213 d:10/27/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: nht90-3.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool, & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W.C. Glasscock (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thank you for your attention to this letter as I am sure you recieve many with the position you hold.

My name is: William Charles Glasscock, operator of a small business located in Spfld. Il. known as Sun-Cool, & Co. which sells, services and installs solar film by Madico; on commercial, residence and last but not least automobiles.

I have personally engaged in this business for 18 years. Most recently I have contacted your office in Washington along with several Federal offices whose numbers were recieved thru several phone calls and by divine guidance with the last one directing me to the Chief Council Office. The answers to many questions I was searching for have left me no alternative but to address this letter formally and with utmost concern.

FMVSS205 has existed on the Federal Dept. of Transportation National Institute of Highway Transportation Associations book since 1968. This particular law, which until recently was not made clear to me as a layman of common interpretation, has shocked m e into reality faster than anything has in my 38 years thus far.

I first got started doing the Art of Window Tinting in 1972 in the state of Florida, where I was born. Circumstances have led me to return to Illinois where I had been raised and have resided for the last twenty years.

Sir, the problems I am now faced with are as follows:

Federal Law: FMVSS205 prohibits the use of materials on windows required for driving purposes to be installed by any after market specialty shop on any passenger vehicles that reduce the light transmission to less than 70% visible light.

State enacted laws have been revised and altered in accordance with the now existing Federal Law. Illinois for example, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles manufactured after January 1st. 1982, as long as owner of said vehicle has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois gives them a letter explaining the medical excuse for such need.

As I see now,a conflict does exist between State and Federal laws.

With the fact in mind that a Federal law supersedes State law, I personally would like to be able to understand why the people of the United States have had to pay State Government and Legislation to enact

their own laws in regards to the use of materials on automobiles, when in all reality there exists this Federal law that strictly prohibits its use as stated above. I personally have been going to our States Capitol office off and on for several years, to speak to representatives pertaining to this matter. I have been harassed by local and state police officers to the point that I was in a state of deep depression with many productive hours lost and personal health as well as respect in the community I and my family reside in.

In addition to the embarassment due to the neglect of enforcement by state and federal authorities of this particular law, I am now afraid to continue the business I am engaged in; which leaves me no means of support for myself and my family.

I am also very confused as to why advertising on the part of all manufactures of this material do so state by pictures that this is a legitimate business and that anyone that so desires may by video or personal training engage in this practice. Understa nding the laws of advertising, I would also like an answer to the reason major auto manufactures are allowed through subliminal message as I see it to advertise new automobiles on television and brochures that these autos may come already tinted less tha n the Federal standards allow. Major film studios are using in certain films automobiles that portray an image of criminal activity or wealth towards individuals driving certain automobiles, limo's, mercedes and the like, which I believe also to be decep tive practices.

I do believe that the crime here should not fall on the responsibility of the individuals such as myself, and that there seems to be a lack of intention on the part of Illinois government bodies as well as parts of the United States Government, to correc t what appears to be inconsistency in upholding the law. With all probability it is possible that through closed eyes for what I believe to be in essence of capitol gains, damage would intail loss of life as well as damage to the environment, through th e obvious procrastination of correction with this matter.

At this point in time I would like to close with the hopes of an immediate response to help with this dilema.

ID: nht73-5.6

DATE: 07/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Transportation Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, requesting clarification of provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 dealing with the identification of emergency exits (S5.1.1). You ask whether this paragraph requires in the case of a 66-passenger school bus having a rear emergency exit which is not located in an occupant space, 66 separate labels, assumedly one for each designated seating position. You ask clarification as well for the identification requirements for emergency exits in a 44-passenger bus with one emergency exit in the rear, three push-out windows on one side of the bus, and two on the other, and with each of the five windows contained wholly in one occupant space. You appear to construe S5.5.1 to require a label for the occupant space of each designated seating position in the bus where a release mechanism is not present.

Your interpretation of the standard is not correct, and the requirements do not call for the extensive labeling you suggest. Paragraph S5.5.1 (second sentence) calls only for the placement of a label in occupant space of an adjacent seat, when that occupant space does not contain a release mechanism. Adjacent seats are defined in paragraph S4. of the standard as only those designated seating positions within a specified distance from an emergency exit. Thus, a label is required only when the occupant space of a passenger seat does not contain an emergency exit release mechanism and that seat is an adjacent seat as defined in the standard.

In the case of the school bus you describe, there do not appear to be any adjacent seats, and accordingly no emergency exit identification labeling is required in any occupant space. The only labeling required by S5.5.1 would be that required to appear at the exit itself. The same result would appear to be

true with respect to the side push-out windows of the 44-passenger bus you describe if the release mechanism for each push-out window is within the occupant space of the adjacent seat. As you did not indicate the configuration of the seating positions at the rear of this bus we cannot provide you an opinion on the identification requirements at that location.

June 21, 1973

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Regarding MVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, please provide clarification of certain aspects as described below:

Paragraph S5.2.3 states that if a school bus contains any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exists shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5. Most school buses are provided with a rear door which would be classified as an emergency exit and, therefore, under the terms of the standard, must comply with S5.3 through S5.5. If this is the intent of the standard, please supply clarification of S5.5.1.

The second sentence of S5.5.1 deals specifically with the release mechanism and was possibly intended to apply to an emergency exit which encompasses several occupant spaces - a configuration common to many intercity buses. However, if this standard is literally followed, at least two requirements develop which we feel were probably not intended.

First, paragraph S5.5.1 states, 'when a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space." On a school bus with 3-3 seating, the release mechanism for the rear emergency exit is not located in an occupant space, and as a result of this, on a 66 passenger bus, 66 individual labels or decals indicating that the release mechanism is located in the rear of the bus would be required. In view of the controlled conditions under which children are transported, plus the fact that they are drilled and instructed in the use of such emergency exits, we feel this requirement would be unnecessary.

Another situation would be a bus with a capacity of 44 adults. The required emergency escape openings could be provided by the use of one emergency exit in the rear of the bus plus three push-out windows on one side of the bus and two push-out windows on the other side. Each of the five windows can be contained in one occupant space and would require, if S5.5.1 is followed to the letter, a whole range of labels to indicate the nearest release mechanism, such as:

Emergency exit instructions located next to:

Next seat behind;

Next seat ahead;

Second seat behind;

Second seat ahead;

Third seat behind; or

Third seat ahead; etc.

If the intent of the standard is as described above, we must make arrangements to procure materials for compliance with these requirements and in view of the imminent effectivity date, any clarification you can give would be appreciated.

WAYNE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION WAYNE CORPORATION

Ken J. Brown Director of Engineering

ID: 17056niv.df

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson
555 Thirteenth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1109

Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Sachs Automotive of America (Sachs), concerning how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with Sachs's "Nivomat" vehicle leveling system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain that Sachs's Nivomat leveling system is-

a compact, fully enclosed suspension unit that takes the place of a conventional shock absorber and assures a level ride to manufacturer specifications, even when the vehicle is fully loaded. . . . [T]he Nivomat senses the vehicle's load condition and levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specification shortly after the vehicle is loaded and driven for a short distance (at most, 3 miles). . . .

The Nivomat is activated by relative motion between the vehicle's body and axle. Thus, as you state, the vehicle has to be driven (or otherwise bounced to achieve the relative motion between body and axle) to activate the Nivomat, to level the vehicle and to maintain the level height. The Nivomat is designed to maintain the manufacturer's ride height specification for the duration of the trip. When the vehicle is stationary for 4 hours, it will begin to lose its leveled condition. The Nivomat would be activated again when the vehicle is driven for a distance not exceeding 3 miles.

With regard to Standard 214 compliance testing, you believe that NHTSA should test vehicles equipped with Nivomat at "optimal vehicle attitude," i.e., with the Nivomat activated. You state that while testing at optimal vehicle attitude may not be required by the standard, you believe that NHTSA should test at this attitude because that "would ensure that the test vehicle is most reflective of real world situations in conformance with established NHTSA policy."

In asking about Standard 214, you note that NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation which you believe supports your position that vehicles should be tested at the optimal vehicle attitude. In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mr. Kadoya of Mazda, NHTSA discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard does not specify a particular test condition. The letter addressed Mazda's questions about how NHTSA would test vehicles equipped with an active suspension system that adjusts vehicles to variable heights.⁽¹⁾ At issue were standards that do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance tests. NHTSA stated on page two of the letter:

In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking.

You believe that the purpose of Standard 214 is to protect occupants during side impact collisions, which occur during operation of the vehicle. You also believe that during vehicle operation, the Nivomat system levels the vehicle to the manufacturer's specified optimal operational height. You therefore conclude that vehicle equipped with the Nivomat should be tested with the Nivomat activated to reflect real world situations. You ask (1) whether NHTSA agrees with this position, and (2) for the purposes of compliance testing to the requirements of Standard 214, whether your suggested means of maintaining the optimal vehicle attitude would be satisfactory to NHTSA.

Standard 214 specifies requirements for protection of occupants in side impact crashes. The standard requires each vehicle to protect its occupants in a full scale dynamic crash test. Even though the test vehicle is at rest, the test procedure simulates a crash of a vehicle which is traveling at 30 miles per hour (mph) into the side of the test vehicle traveling at 15 mph. There also is a static test that requires doors to resist a piston pressing a rigid steel cylinder inward against the door. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions for these tests, it does not specify vehicle operational height.⁽²⁾

The Mazda letter addressed frontal, side and other impacts, to the extent these are incorporated into Standards 204, 208, 212, 219 and 301. NHTSA concluded that the frontal test requirements of these standards need to be met only at the suspension heights that can occur at the speed used in the crash test (generally speeds up to 30 mph), even though the requirements have relevance at higher and lower speeds. The letter also determined that Standard 208's lateral moving barrier crash test requirements must be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational, i.e., at all vehicle heights that can occur during vehicle operation, regardless of speed. This is because Standard 208 specifies that the lateral moving barrier test is conducted with the vehicle at rest. Thus, the standard's evaluation of this aspect of safety performance is not limited to how vehicles perform at certain limited speeds (e.g., speeds up to 30 mph). For basically the same reason, NHTSA also concluded that Standard 301's side and rear moving barrier crash tests would have to be met at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.

With respect to your inquiry and Standard 214, applying the language of the standard and the principles and conclusions of the Mazda letter leads us to conclude that crash testing of vehicles equipped with the Nivomat would be performed with the vehicle at all suspension heights that can occur with the vehicle traveling at a 15 mph vehicle speed. In issuing the dynamic side impact requirements of Standard 214, the agency decided to limit the standard's evaluation of occupant crash protection in side impacts to how vehicles perform in impacts between a vehicle traveling 15 mph (the test vehicle) and a striking vehicle traveling 30 mph. A vehicle equipped with the Nivomat could attain a speed of 15 mph before traveling the distance that is needed to activate the Nivomat, and could become involved in a side impact crash before activation of the Nivomat. Thus, while we agree that a vehicle could be tested to Standard 214 with the Nivomat activated, we also conclude that NHTSA should not exclude testing of the vehicle without activating the Nivomat. Testing a vehicle both prior to and after activation best ensures that the vehicle would provide the requisite level of safety protection at all ride heights that can occur with the vehicle operational.⁽³⁾ Thus, manufacturers must assure that the vehicle complies with the standard under both conditions; i.e., when the Nivomat is activated and when it is not.

Your second question relates to testing a vehicle with the Nivomat system in the activated mode.⁽⁴⁾ You suggest a means that NHTSA could take "to ensure that the Nivomat system's leveling action is taken into account during compliance testing."

You state on pp. 2-3 of your letter:

Specifically, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude as follows. Pursuant to FMVSS 214, S6.2, the test facility would measure the test vehicle's attitude in the "as delivered" condition precisely as set forth in the standard. When measuring the test vehicle in the "fully loaded" condition, the test facility would add the appropriate ballast, and then bounce the vehicle up and down on both the front and back ends of the vehicle for several minutes. This bouncing will simulate the action of driving the vehicle on the road and activate the Nivomat system. Once bouncing is completed on both sides, the test facility would immediately measure the test vehicle's attitude. Once these test vehicle attitude parameters are obtained, the test facility may make appropriate adjustments prior to conducting the actual test.

For the dynamic test, FMVSS 214 requires the test vehicle attitude to be at or between the measurements mentioned above. If, due to time delays, the test vehicle is not at the appropriate attitude, the test facility is able to use standard, available means to adjust the test vehicle attitude. For example, the test facility may use after-market spacers placed between coils in the suspension springs as a means to easily maintain the measured attitude.

We understand you to be asking how a test vehicle can be adjusted (raised) to reflect the condition of the vehicle with the Nivomat in the activated mode. NHTSA typically does not specify in an interpretation a particular means for testing a vehicle when that means is not set forth in the standard. We stated in the Mazda letter, however, that the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that it should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained as it would happen in the real world. NHTSA also stated, "For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicle's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested." We believe that the use of spacers could be a suitable way of maintaining the height of a vehicle to replicate an activated Nivomat system. Bouncing the vehicle to activate the Nivomat (and to measure the fully loaded condition) could be acceptable, if the bouncing action would not affect the vehicle being tested or the test devices (e.g., the side impact dummies) that were installed in the vehicle for the dynamic test. NHTSA may or may not use these suggested means in its compliance testing. The suitability of these means would have to be determined in the context of an actual compliance test, for the particular vehicle being tested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/24/98
ref:214

1. Mazda's vehicle had an active suspension system that was operational only when the vehicle's engine was operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of approximately 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered a certain amount from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the vehicle were not used for several days, the height may be lowered from the nominal or design position even more than the height attained at 35 mph. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine.

2. As you indicate in your letter, the standard does specify that the vehicle attitude during the test must be at or between the "as delivered" and the "fully loaded" attitude (S6.2). Attitude is the vehicle position as measured from the ground to a reference point above each of the four wheels. Thus, attitude is a measure of vehicle position with respect to the ground and is a combination of both height and angle.

3. Further, it is unclear whether the Nivomat would be activated if the driver were alone in the vehicle.

4. Please note that, as stated in the previous paragraph, we could test a Nivomat-equipped vehicle with the Nivomat not activated, as well as with it activated.