ID: aiam3892

Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr Pius J. Lacher, the Superintendent of Schools in Mora, Minnesota. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; As I understand Mr. Lacher's letter, the Mora public schools would lik to use 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport children to and from extra- curricular activities. Mr. Lacher believes that he is restricted by our Federal regulations to using only large, 72-passenger buses for this purposes. He urges a change in the regulations.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations. In thi letter, I would like to explain how our regulations might affect Mora's choice of buses. Before I begin, let me explain that our regulations define a 'bus' as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Our regulations require manufacturers and dealers to certify that new buses comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards, when these vehicles are sold to schools.; Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts o Congress, that could affect Mora's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563, 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If Mora plans to buy a *new* bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. New conventional 12 or 15 passenger vans that are not manufactured to comply with these standards could not be sold for use as school buses.; The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit Mora from using vehicles tha carry more than 10 persons. There might, however, be impediments under Minnesota State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564, 23 U.S.C. 401-408). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Programs Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety program. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words 'School Bus' and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 12 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.; I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect Mora only if Minnesota ha adopted it and if Minnesota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Minnesota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.; Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance tha our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these safety features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. Mora should consider these safety features when the school district decides to buy their school vehicles. Please let me know if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1641

Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' October 8, 1974, clarification of it February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, that would establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market. You point out that Midland-Ross was referring to chamber stroke and not chamber diameter as the chamber dimension which could affect the safety of a brake system. You also requested that we adopt SAE Standard J10b instead of J10a as our specification of a reservoir that 'withstands' certain internal hydrostatic pressure.; In our denial of your petition, we did understand your point tha additional stroke could be discouraged by a reservoir capacity requirement based on chamber size at maximum travel of the piston or diaphragm. We found that the stopping distance requirements in effect mandate the installation of high performance components, and we do not anticipate a safety problem. If a safety problem does arise in the future, we would consider a modification of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2.; SAE Standard No. J10b is identical to J10a in its requirement that n rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceed one percent. Therefore, for purposes of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, we are adopting SAE J10b as our specification of 'withstand' until we undertake further rulemaking.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1986y

Mr. Takayoshi Chikada
Manager of Automotive Lighting
Engineering Control Dept.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June l9 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) to December l, l989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed.

Your third question is:

How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the test procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathematical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance. Your final question is:

It is acceptable to set up initial "0" point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically?

You may determine the "O" point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal "O" point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal "O" mark is required to be determined.

In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. l08 to this office.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:l08 d:8/23/89

ID: aiam4565

"Dear Mr. Ditlow: This responds to your most recent letter to m concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available. In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter 'reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.' You stated that you would welcome a 'substantive response' to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response. Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will 'kill people.' To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts. Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models. You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, 'because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone.' You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no 'possible scientific basis' for GM's conclusion. NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences. However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2377

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, questio whether the NHTSA's redefinition of 'school bus' (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes 'interstate commerce' as that term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.; The redefinition of school bus (effective April 1, 1977) states: >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat 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.<<<; The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses o regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safety standards or Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standard-setting activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the Act) (15 UVS.C. S 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a broad change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.; The meaning 'interstate commerce' in the redefinition is the same a for that term in S 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import' non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee Report stated:; >>>. . . The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess 22(1966))<<<; The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth i *Katzenback v. McClurg*, 379 U.S. 294 (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the ambit of 'interstate commerce' in those infrequent cases where a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under S 108(a)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even if it never leaves the State.; Your second July 20 letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA' April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the 'header' over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not 'enclose occupant space' and cannot be considered a 'surface component'.; 'Body panel joint' is defined in the standard to mean, with severa exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself is covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of 'body panel' does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the headlining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a 'body panel joint' at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).; You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint wher the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of 'body panel joint' refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.; You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our Apri 26 letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.; In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure i our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of this component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.; Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976 letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of 'school bus' become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA -- MANAGER OF AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/16/89 FROM TAKAYOSHI CHIKADA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE -- NHTSA; RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, by FAX as you requested. You have asked four questions with respect to the recently amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We responded to your first two questions in a letter dated June 19 to Mr. Hasegawa of your office. A copy is enclosed for your reference. Since that time, however, in response to a petition by General Motors, we have changed the effective date of parag raph S7.7.5.1(a) to December 1, 1989, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A copy of this notice is also enclosed.

Your third question is:

How should we prove the confirmation to the requirement of S7.7.2.2? We think the combination of Horizontal and Vertical angle within the aim range will be so huge and it is not practicable to test for all combinations.

This paragraph applies to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa. The agency has frequently advised manufacturers that there is no legal requirement that conformance be demonstrated through the t est procedures stated in the standard. While the agency will use those procedures in its compliance testing, the manufacturer may certify compliance with the performance requirements of a standard through engineering studies, computer simulations, mathe matical calculations, or other means intended as an exercise of due care and affording a reasonable basis upon which to certify compliance.

Your final question is:

It is acceptable to set up initial "O" point of S7.7.5.2(a)(2) not mechanically but photometrically?

You may determine the "O" point by whatever means you deem appropriate for the headlighting system, as long as the method achieves a horizontal "O" point that may be used for the purposes of paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(2), and any other paragraph in which the horizontal "O" mark is required to be determined.

In the future, please address your requests for interpretations of Standard No. 108 to this office.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Austin, Texas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you stated your concern respecting the installation of "latches" on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms f or required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires "the first-closed (left-hand) door)" to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal sa fety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You bel ieve that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student' s falling through a door opened inadvertently.

Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Sta ndard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle' s left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle.

When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are "emergency doors" under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified par allelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.)

Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217?

If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a suff icient sear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that t he designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus .

On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217.

There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installi ng this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that "extra" emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation: that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required sear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bu s.

Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism .)

In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is that you refer to in your letter as the door "latch." If the test device des cribed in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside t he vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard.

If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms ma y be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.)

If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading pa ssengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door.

Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened t o insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelepiped?

If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the rel ease mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured.

Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand doo r closed?

In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is "on." For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is "on." As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an "additional" emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers; then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements a s may apply to these exits.

Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door?

In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, "one rear emergency door," or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2. 2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism.

I Hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a question concerning the installation of latches on small van conversion buses that have two rear doors that act or may act as emergency doors. We have in our Texas school bus specifications a requirement that the first-closed (left-hand) door be equipped with latching mechanisms top and bottom. Collins Industries, one of our suppliers of this type of bus, claims that they cannot meet our requirement because it is in conflict with the provisions of FMVSS No. 217.

We are concerned about this door not having any latching mechanisms at all, since, if Collins is correct, this door would be held close only by the right-hand door. One could envision situations in which several children could be seated or standing in th e immediate vicinity of these doors (even behind the last row of seats or in the isle immediately ahead of the emergency doors) at the time the right-hand door was accidentally or intentionally opened. Of course, the driver would be immediately notified by the ringing of the buzzer (if it were operational) that the emergency door was opened, but by the time the driver could take any action, both doors could be open and a student could fall from the back of the bus. We maintain that in this situation, if the first-closed (the left-hand) door is latched independently or the last-closed (right-hand) door, there would be less chance of a student fa lling out of the bus should the right-hand door be opened while the bus is underway.

I would appreciate your addressing the following questions:

1. Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered "emergency doors" in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1. of FMVSS No. 217?

2. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require separate, independent operation; that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment?

3. Does Paragraph S5.3.3. require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45" high by 22" wide x 6" deep parallelopiped?

4. Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelopiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed?

5. Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelopiped even though the left-hand door is held close by the latches of the right-hand door?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin

Specifications/Inspections Chief

ID: aiam1313

Dear Mr. Bradford: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, 1973, concerning you proposed use of a tension reliever device in a seat belt retractor. As we understand the concept of the tension reliever, it allows a small amount of slack to be introduced into the webbing by a mechanism roughly similar to that of a window shade. If the webbing is pulled smoothly back and forth, the retractor exerts a normal retractive force. If, however, the retraction is halted at a certain point, as when the belt comes to rest against an occupant's shoulder, the reliever engages and the occupant is relieved of the active pull of the retractor until he moves forward by an inch or two and disengages the reliever.; Your initial question is whether a reliever-equipped retractor will b considered to meet the retraction force requirements of S4.3(j)(6) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. You state that it will meet the test so long as the procedures of S5.2(j) are strictly observed and no oscillations are introduced by the test apparatus. If the facts are as you state, it is our opinion that the retractor would meet S4.3(j)(6).; Your other question, as clarified by telephone on November 1, 1973, i whether we have reservations about the concept of a tension reliever that would lead us to bar its use through amendment of Standard No. 209. Based on the information presently available, we have no such reservations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4696

"Dear Ms. Rees: This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. I your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification. (1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed? First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567. If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of 'due care' could be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized. Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards. (2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing? As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies with federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle. Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 207 or any other standard. In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5633

"Dear Mr. Gregorio: This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995 requesting 'authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim.' Your letter states: Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees. You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years. In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";