ID: nht76-4.6

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hal H. Newell -- Eaton Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, questions whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.

The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide, of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office

January 21, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Eaton Corporation desires clarification as to the effect the order, issued on January 16 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in PACCAR Inc., vs. NHTSA and DOT, has on the current status of FMVSS 121 and the proposed changes thereto. Are the requirements mandated under Standard 121 totally eliminated during the duration of the order? Does the Government plan to appeal the order or seek to have it reconsidered by the Court? Can equipment installed on vehicles prior to January 16 in order to meet the requirements of the Standard now be removed? If a vehicle is produced while the Court order is in effect which cannot meet the requirements under the Standard, should the Standard ultimately be sustained, would the purchaser be required to refit the vehicle to meet the Standard's requirements? In the event the stay order is lifted will NHTSA permit a delay in requirements under the Standard until supply lines have been re-established.

As a brake system supplier to the truck industry, there is considerable uncertainty at Eaton as to what type of equipment should be manufactured during this interim period. We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on the problems described above as early as convenient.

Hal H. Newell

ID: nht76-4.7

DATE: 05/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 13, 1976, request for written confirmation that the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, do not preclude the use of brake fluid dispensing devices which are used without attachment to the brake fluid container.

Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 specifies the information that packagers of brake fluids are required to place on the outside of the brake fluid container. Subsection (g) of this paragraph specifies four warnings that must be marked on the container. These labeling requirements apply only to the brake fluid container. The requirements do not apply to use of the brake fluid, and therefore do not create duties on the part of the user to abide by the warnings. The purpose of these requirements is only to ensure that purchasers are warned of potential safety hazards that can result from improper use and storage of the product.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

APRIL 13, 1976

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to Title 49 - Transportation, Chapter V - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT), Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Motor Vehicle Hydraulic Brake Fluids, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.

This Headquarters has issued a Solicitation IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 for a quantity of automotive hydraulic brake system filler-bleeders.

One of the potential competitors on this procurement (i.e., Bowes Seal Fast Corporation, (Bowes)) has brought into issue the Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 in relationship to the specification cited in this solicitation (Incl 1). Specifically, Bowes contends that the required item under Mil-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969, Type I, Class A, Size 1, violates the requirement of FMVSS No. 116, paragraphs S5.2.2.2., (g) 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Our engineering staff is of the opinion that the requirements of FMVSS No. 116 properly applies only to the producer, packager, wholesaler, retailer and user for storage purposes, but has no relationship to the dispensing device used to fill any vehicles hydraulic brake systems.

Contact has been made with Mr. Sid Williams and Mr. Fred Redler of your office and they have orally confirmed that our engineering staffs' view of this matter is correct. Written verification of this fact is requested so that a final reply can be made to Bowes. Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated. It is also requested that you forward the latest Series 100 and 300 Standards.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN L. (Illegible Word) -- Chief, Procurement Law Division

1 Incl As stated

BOWES SEAL FAST CORPORATION

March 24, 1976

General William E. Eicher -- U. S. Army (Illegible Word) Command

Dear Sir:

Subject: FILLER-BLEEDER, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEM, AUTOMOTIVE NSN 4910-00-273-3658 (Formerly FSN 4910-273-3658)

Inasmuch as our Company is a small business, and manufacturer of equipment in the above category, that category is of interest. We are also government contractors and sub-contractors. Following is a tabulation of contract awards from your Command of which we find record in Commerce Business Daily: Solicitation No. DAAF03-72-B-1405 DAAA09-74-B-6988 Applicable Document Cited T&E PD-58B T&E PD-82 1969 June 20 1973 September 05 Contract Award DAAF03-73-C-1029-0004 DAAA09-74-D-6033-0001 24 April 1973 8 May 1974 Award Quantity 1,556 Units 1,016 Units Award Amount $ 69,302 $ 70,632

There has been some previous correspondence from this office to your Command on the above procurement. While our correspondence took exception to the procurement, it did not include a protest of contract award. A reply to one of our letters discussed procurement under T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, stating "based on higher work load priorities during this time frame, a military specification was not prepared."

Now, we have received current IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 applying to NSN 4910-00-273-3568 in quantity of 1,597 units with bid opening date of 9 April 1976. The applicable document cited in this solicitation is MIL-F-19849C dated 14 May 1969.

Upon reading MIL-F-19849C, we do not find equipment described to be basically different from that of T&E PD-58B and T&E PD-82, at least as far as IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363 is concerned. The current IFB stipulates Type I, Class A, Size 1 unit with tank capacity of 3 gallons +/- 1/2 gallon. This refers to a storage tank with diaphragm into which hydraulic brake fluid would be transferred from the original container for shop use as needed.

2 Attention is invited to Department of Transportation FMVSS No. 116 published in Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 232, December 2, 1971. FMVSS 116 serves to establish standards for hydraulic brake fluids and their use.

Attached are specimens of labeling, including directions for use, which have been on all Bowes brake fluid containers since 1972. That this label includes the name of our Company is not significant, because all brake fluid marketers now use identical directions. This is as required in FMVSS 116, Section S 5.2.2.2., sub-paragraph (g), outlining the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. As will be noticed under the directions of panel 2, the label clearly states brake fluid is to be stored only in its original container, and that a container is not to be refilled.

In our reading of MIL-F-19849C, it appears to be a revision of earlier Specification MIL-F-198488, dated 4 September 1963. It is evident, then, that the specification has not been revised since 14 May 1969, hence is in conflict with FMVSS No. 116, effective 1 March, 1972.

While FMVSS 116 does not specify any particular type of dispenser for the use of hydraulic brake fluid, it does clearly state "store brake fluid only in its original container". It also specifies "do not refill container." This would exclude transferring brake fluid from its original drum or can to a refillable-reusable tank of 3 gallon capacity.

Attached is a catalog-instruction sheet on the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler which is manufactured by our Company. This unit passed feasibility testing at your Command in 1971, following which it was approved and a contract issued from General Services Administration under date of February 15, 1972. It does meet the requirement of FMVSS No. 116 in dispensing brake fluid directly from an original closed container. Since pressure for operation of the unit is provided by a spring-loaded cylinder extending into the original brake fluid container, no air line, pressure gauge or water trap is required. Incidentally, we do not see the latter mentioned in MIL-F-19849C, although we question that a diaphragm would always be impervious to moisture in compressed air.

While the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is a product of distinctive quality, safety and convenience, it is not a proprietary item. That it does serve satisfactorily in its intended use is evidenced by repeat orders from original GSA contract buyers. The unit has also been the subject of a "New Equipment Review" letter from your Command.

As will be noted in the tabulation of contracts shown elsewhere in this letter, the cost of procurement increased over 50% from the 1973 award to the 1974 award, or from $ 44.54 to $ 69.52 per unit. In 1976, the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler is available to dealers and fleet users from Bowes distributors throughout the United States at $ 18.25. Construction of the unit is of a nature not requiring special packaging. Standard commercial packaging is one unit per corrugated box 6 1/4" x 3 3/4" x 10 1/8", 10 units per master corrugated shipping carton 22" x 10 1/2" x 13 3/4". Shipping in this packaging has not involved any problem of damage in shipment or storage.

While our Company would be pleased to bid the Mack Brake Fluid Bleeder-Filler under IFB DAAA09-76-B-6363, there is no reason to do so as such offer would be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

In our opinion, MIL-F-19849C has been obsolete for some time, no longer an appropriate criterion for procurement. Therefore, we respectfully ask that Solicitation No. DAAA09-76-B-6363 be canceled pending a thorough review of its subject, and development of an up-to-date revision of MIL-F-19849C.

Cordially yours,

GEORGE E. TALMAGE, Secretary

Copy to: Commander, U. S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, AMSTA-MST National Automotive Center, GSA-FYS; DRXMD-TE, Mr. Van Acker

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: nht76-4.8

DATE: 09/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 2, 1976, question whether evaluation of the lubricity of DOT 4 brake fluid by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) modified stroking test (SAE J1703f) is consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids.

Standard No. 116 specifies that the stroking properties of DOT 4 brake fluids be tested by use of the apparatus described in SAE Standard J1703b. This is the procedure that would be used in a determination of whether a certain brake fluid conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 116. Section 571.5 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 571) provides that materials subject to change are incorporated into a standard as provided in the standard or, if no indication is made, as of the date of adoption of Part 571. In this case, the standard indicates that J1303b is the version of the SAE practice that has been incorporated.

This does not mean that you cannot use the modified SAE procedure for purposes of your certification testing. Your obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that your certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that you have exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 116 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b) (2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards. Rather, he must ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that his product will conform to the requirements of the standard when it is tested by the stated methods. The NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial Chemical Industries Limited

Petrochemicals Division Headquarters

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Department of Transportation

JULY 2, 1976

Dear Sirs

DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID

We refer to your specification for DOT 4 grade brake fluid as given in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 116, published in the Federal Register, Vol 36, No 122, June 24 1971.

We note that in section S6.13 the evaluation of stroking properties follows the procedure given in SAE J 1703b section 4.12 "Simulated Service Performance".

However our latest SAE Standard for brake fluid (SAE J1703f) contains details of a modified stroking test.

We are considering changing our stroking test apparatus to comply with SAEJ1703f and would be grateful if you could confirm that evaluation of brake fluid lubricity by this method is acceptable for DOT 4 grade fluid.

Yours faithfully

J J Cowley

ID: nht76-4.9

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Atkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.

I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded on the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that "it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire."

The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:

Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears, permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:

(a) The symbol DOT;

(b) The size of the tire; and

(c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.

This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.

Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tires are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a "remolding" of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter "R", as indicated in 49 CFR @ 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. "Remolding" of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.

In conclusion, bead-to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standard No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.

YOURS TRULY,

PAUL ATKINSON TIRE RETREADING CONSULTANT

June 18, 1976

Frank Berndt, acting chief council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I visited with Mr. Arturo Casanova and Mr. David Snyder on Tuesday, June 15. I brought some questions to them that they felt should be directed to you for a decision, and if necessary, a ruling.

I have a firm that I represent in Pennsylvania, that is planning to enter the passenger tire retreading field. They will be different in their operation in that they plan to retread tires from bead to bead. Both sidewalls will be buffed, and a thin venier of rubber applied. The sidewall mold plates will be engraved to contain all of the information required by your department.

I raised the question to Mssrs. Casanova and Snyder about any objections that your department might have to these plans. It was their feeling that their was no objection, other than the possible objection to the removal of the DOT certification, proving that the casing used was in fact a DOT casing.

As this process involves a very advanced cost in federal excise taxes, and advanced cost in processing, materials, and equipment, it will not be competitive with customary retreading. It will have to be sold at a very premium price.

Also, it has been eight years since the incorporation of the DOT symbol. Tires without this symbol have been for all practical purposes, have been used up, and are no longer on the casing market. I do not feel that any reputable dealer would accept a casing of this age, regardless of DOT rulings.

I am requesting a ruling from you that it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertiment information on the tire. This is with the understanding that all tires used for passenger use will be DOT casings. The DOT would be returned by molded labeling.

I would add for your consideration that this system is widely used throughout Europe. There is also a dealer in Minnesota who is advertising this type work in magazines. I am also informed that it is being done by at least one company in California.

I would appreciate your favorable ruling on this matter at your earliest convenience.

Paul Atkinson

ID: nht76-5.1

DATE: 01/23/76

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

TO: AB Stil-Industri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Stil-Industri's December 12, 1975, question whether S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies, in the case of a push-button release, the location and direction of force application used in testing the release under the requirements of S4.3(d)(1). Section S5.2(d)(1) provides in part:

(1) . . .The buckle release force shall be measured by applying a force on the buckle in a manner and direction typical of those which would be employed by a seatbelt occupant. For pushbutton-release buckles, the force shall be applied at least 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening of the buckle in a direction that produces maximum releasing effect. . .

The NHTSA interprets these provisions of S5.2(d)(1) to permit the manufacturer to apply force in the direction and location that provides the best possible mechanical advantage relative to the manufacturer's buckle design. The only limitation in the case of a push-button design is that the manufacturer must not apply the force any closer than 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DECEMBER 12, 1975

GENTLEMEN,

WE ARE A SWEDISH COMPANY PRODUCING SAFETY-BELTS FOR DIFFERENT CARS AND ALL DIFFERENT MARKETS. WE WOULD KINDLY ASK YOU TO HELP US WITH SOME QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET SECTION (1) IN S.5.2 (D) ABOUT BUCKLE RELEASE.

FROM THE PASSAGE: "THE BUCKLE RELEASE FORCE SHALL BE. . . . .TO:. .. RELEASING EFFECT". WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. WHERE ON THE PUSH BUTTON SHALL WE APPLY THE FORCE? IN A POSITION WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR THE SEAT BELT OCCUPANT? IN THE CENTER? 1/8 INCH FROM WHICH EDGE? IN WHAT DIRECTION? THESE QUESTIONS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR US AND WE AWAIT YOUR REPLY WITH GREAT INTEREST. WE ARE VERY GREATFUL IF YOU COULD ANSWER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

SINCERELY YOURS AB STIL-INDUSTRI; HANS SYLVEN -- CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION

ID: nht76-5.10

DATE: 08/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's July 7, 1976, request for revision of the requirements of S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, so that passage of the described parallelepiped through the emergency door can be effected with its lower surface several inches above the bus floor. Section 5.4.2.1 requires that the 45-inch dimension of the parallelepiped remain vertical, that the 24-inch dimension remain parallel to the opening, and that the lower surface remain in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

The three specifications for passage of the parallelepiped through the opening are intended to describe, for the benefit of the manufacturer, how the NHTSA will conduct its compliance testing. These specifications do not represent a requirement that the opening be constructed without a threshold or corner obstructions. As the agency interprets this requirement, minor obstructions that do not necessitate passage of the parallelepiped through the opening more than 1 inch above the floor are not prohibited by this requirement. Thus, in the case you describe, the NHTSA would move the parallelepiped through the opening with its sides vertical and the rear surface parallel to the rear surface of the bus, just above the obstructions, but no more than 1 inch above the bus floor.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

July 7, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 - School Bus Emergency Exit Requirements (Docket No. 75-3; Notice 2 - Effective October 26, 1976)

Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard require that the Parallelepiped should be entered into the emergency door opening, keeping the 24 inch dimension (the base of the Parallelepiped) parallel to the opening and the lower surface (the base of the Parallelepiped) in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

By reducing the seating capacity of the bus, by installing one (1) 26 inch and one (1) 39 inch seat in the rearmost row, the requirement for the 24 inch wide Parallelepiped can be met in Superior School Buses, shown on Drawing No. 4100429, attached. However, also as shown on the attached drawing, the requirement for keeping the lower surface in contact with the floor cannot be met in Superior Buses.

The problem as can be seen on the attached drawing is two-fold, and as follows:

Section B-B, depicts a riser that as installed functions as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement.

View Circle A, depicts a 2.81 inch radius that exists in the two lower corners of the emergency door opening. These radii also serves as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement. Most importantly, these 2.81 inch radii are a part of the emergency door sash and are a part of a major structural member of the bus rearend assembly.

If the Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation are required to comply with the exact requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard, and a major reengineering, redesign and retooling program would be required, in addition, the newly configured rearend assembly would need to be subjected to an extensive real-world evaluation to establish its' structural reliability.

The Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that the requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above reference safety standard be rewritten to permit the existence of minor functional components in the emergency door openings such as the "riser" and minor radii as depicted on the attached drawing. It is the opinion of the Super Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation that permitted existence of such minor functional components would in no manner obstruct the effective egress of children in schoolbus crash situation.

Your concurrence in the above matter would be appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht76-5.11

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. G. Milby

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, question whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a "seat guard" at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings.

The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured on or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exists from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallele-piped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved.

The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is to assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exists should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1.

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

@ 103

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

It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington's requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5 4.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 20, 1976

Thomas Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

It has been our practice to furnish safety chains with snaps on both ends across side emergency doors as standard equipment per the enclosed photograph. Chains are optional equipment for rear emergency doors. The State of Washington plans to require the following on school buses:

"Seats adjacent to side emergency doors, if so positioned, shall have a seat guard of adequate size to prevent student falling from bus should emergency door be accidentally opened."

Will the subject safety chains or seat guards for either side or rear emergency doors be legal for school buses after October 26, 1976?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.12

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anshelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1976, question whether the windows of "recreational vehicles" qualify as "secondary means of egress" and what Federal requirements would apply to them if they do so qualify.

The only Federal requirement for the provision of emergency exists apply to buses (Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217 (copy enclosed)). "Bus" is defined by our regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 571.3). Thus, Standard No. 217 would apply to the vehicle you describe if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons (including the driver) while the vehicle is in motion.

The standard does not use the term "secondary means of egress" but specifies a minimum area of unobstructed opening that may be provided by several means (e.g., emergency door, "push-out window").

SINCERELY,

ANSCHELEWITZ BARR ANSEL & BONELLO

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Program

Att: Conrad Cooke

Re: Feimster v. Concord Motor Homes Our file #14247

Pursuant to Mr. Williams' telephone conversation with this office on 7 September 1976, he informed me that you have conducted an investigation relative to recreational vehicles having secondary means of egress.

Concord Motor Homes, the defendant in the above-captioned matter, alleges that the windows of their recreational vehicle quali as secondary means of egress in that one can break the tempered glass and climb out. The windows involved in this accident were not the "pop-out" type.

I do not agree with Concord Motor Homes' assumption that these windows qualify as a secondary means of egress.

I would appreciate it if you would forward to me any information you may have with regard to whether or not windows of recreational vehicles qualify as secondary means of egress, and, if so, the standards said windows must comply with as a secondary means of egress. If there is a charge for this information, please advise and I will forward you a check at once.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Ansell

ID: nht76-5.13

DATE: 04/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request for interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.

You point out that "unobstructed passage" through the opening could be considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelpiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.

The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occur when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 22, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, PARAGRAPH S5.4.2a, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 26, 1976

This paragraph specifies a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide, and 12 inches deep. We need an interpretation as to the reference point from which the 12" dimension should be measured. The four alternatives are:

1. From outside body at floor level.

2. From inside body at floor level.

3. From outside body at top of parallelepiped.

4. From inside body at top of parallelepiped.

As you can see from the enclosed photograph, the measuring point can make several inches difference depending on where it is located.

Because time is so important to us in complying with this standard and several others, we have made a decision to proceed based on measuring the 12" at the floor level with the rear surface of the parallelepiped flush with the outside surface of the body as shown in the enclosed photos. If this interpretation is not valid, please call us immediately. We shall look forward to your early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.14

DATE: 05/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Delbert L. Latta; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your March 23, 1976, request for consideration of the views of a constituent that provision of air cushion restraint systems in passenger cars would be too costly, and that motor vehicle regulation should concentrate on used vehicles because they are equipped with fewer safety and emission features.

As you are aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle standards that will reduce the number of accidents and deaths, and the severity of injuries, that occur on our nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation evaluates the available means to meet this goal. Restraining vehicle occupants to protect them against impact with the vehicle interior in a crash offers one of the greatest opportunities for improving motor vehicle safety. Reliance on existing seatbelt systems has prevented only a small portion of the death and injuries that occur from impact with the vehicle interior. For this reason, other means of providing restraint are under consideration. I can assure you that the issues of purchase cost, replacement cost, and the alternatives to air cushions are being included in this consideration.

The safe operation of motor vehicles has traditionally been regulated by the individual States and not the Federal Government. While the Act does not authorize the retrofit of safety devices to vehicles in use, the NHTSA has issued a highway safety program standard for State periodic motor vehicle inspection programs (23 CFR @ 1204.4). Part 570, Vehicle in Use Standards (49 CFR Part 570), sets forth a procedure for inspection of older vehicles for use by the States in implementing the program standard. Also, the NHTSA has established demonstration diagnostic inspection projects that include emission as well as safety inspection of vehicles in use.

I have no basis for comment on the reported decision by Allstate Insurance Company not to consider the effects of bumper modification in establishing its premium structure.

I trust that this response will answer your constituent's questions.