ID: nht68-2.48

DATE: 09/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention to Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. The "Minimum Standards for School Buses", as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.

Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.

Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnson claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.

Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnson can provide in the future.

In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and personal contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.

This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts was submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converting Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight-lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.

ID: aiam0153

Dear Mr. Ulman: Thank you for your letters of March 17, 1969, and March 26, 1969 pertaining to certain child restraint devices and whether or not they are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. Your specific questions and our corresponding answers are as follows:; >>>Question No. 1: Which of the commercially available devices mus comply with the Type 3 requirements of Standard No. 209, which must not?; Answer No. 1: Child restraint devices must comply with the Type requirements of Standard No. 209 if, by visual examination of the design and the advertising thereof, they are sold as being a Type 3 seat belt assembly. By definition, a Type 3 seat belt assembly is a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.; Question No. 2: How does one tell whether a given device is covered o not?; Answer No. 2: If the manifested purpose of any belt, strap, webbing o similar device is to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, then the belt has to comply with the applicable portions of Standard No. 209. There is a distinct difference between a child seating system' and a seat belt used to restrain a child. Child seating system' means an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating and restraining a child being transported in a passenger car. This child seating system is not covered by Standard No. 209, but will be covered by a future standard.; Question No. 3: Is the criterion (that a given device must comply whether or not the maker claims that the device offers protection against impact injury?; Answer No. 3: Whether or not the maker of a child restraining bel claims that the device offers protection against impact injury is not the criterion upon which the compliance interpretation is based. (Reference Answer No. 2)<<<; Further investigation is needed before we can provide an answer to you question pertaining to which specific manufacturers of the belts that you tested are in violation.; To assist you in your project on child restraint devices, we ar enclosing the latest copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 and the copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on child restraint systems.; We trust that we have been of assistance to you. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0273

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location Identification, and *Illumination*#Dear Mr. Introvigne:#This is in reply to your letter of September 2 asking whether a contradiction exists in paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 101. You ask, in essence, whether the requirement in paragraph S4.3 that an illumination adjustment control be provided with an 'off' position contradicts the requirement in the same paragraph that control identification 'shall be illuminated . . . whenever the headlamps are activated.'#It is true that activation of the headlamps will not simultaneously activate control identification illumination if the illumination switch is in the 'off' position. The intent of S4.3 is that control identification shall be illuminated whenever the headlamps are activated and the illumination adjustment control is in a position other than 'off.'#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0274

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location Identification, and *Illumination*#Dear Mr. Introvigne:#This is in reply to your letter of September 2 asking whether a contradiction exists in paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 101. You ask, in essence, whether the requirement in paragraph S4.3 that an illumination adjustment control be provided with an 'off' position contradicts the requirement in the same paragraph that control identification 'shall be illuminated . . . whenever the headlamps are activated.'#It is true that activation of the headlamps will not simultaneously activate control identification illumination if the illumination switch is in the 'off' position. The intent of S4.3 is that control identification shall be illuminated whenever the headlamps are activated and the illumination adjustment control is in a position other than 'off.'#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel;

ID: nht78-3.26

DATE: 02/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr,; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 8, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of the term "passenger compartment" as used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 217 requires that a school bus side emergency door be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. The NHTSA interprets the term "passenger compartment" to mean the area from the windshield to the back of the bus.

In a companion question, you ask whether it would be permissible for a small portion of a side emergency door, installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b), to fall within the front half of a bus as long as most of the door is within the required rear half of the passenger compartment. The answer to your question is no. The emergency door must be totally located within the rear half of the passenger compartment.

SINCERELY,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

December 8, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: School Buses - Emergency Door, Location of

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, Section S5.2.3.1(b)

The above referenced section states: "One emergency door on the vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment . . . .etc."

Several questions have arisen regarding the quoted portion of the standard, and we would appreciate an answer to these questions. We have included prints to help explain our inquiries.

1. Passenger Compartment: From what point to what point longitudinally is the passenger compartment measured? As can be seen on the print the passenger compartment may vary depending on what is definition of the passenger compartment.

Is it from the windshield to the rear of the bus (1/2L + 1/2L), or from the back of the front barrier to the rear of the bus? (1/2R + 1/2R) NOTE: For clarity, we have shown these measurements on opposite sides of the bus. Also for your information the State of New York measures (1/2L + 1/2L) or glass to glass as it is commonly called.

Our prime purpose of the inquiry is that the State of Washington requires that the side emergency door be located in front of the rear axle. In certain cases this is impossible, and still meet your requirement of FMVSS 217-S5.2.3.1(b). We realize that Federal Standards take precedent over the State Standard yet on certain models, due to the module construction, a portion of the door impinges upon the forward section of the passenger compartment. Is this permissible?

Areas marked W/H are wheelhouses, and no side emergency door may be installed in these area and comply with FMVSS 217-S5.4.2.1.(b).

If we may be of further assistance, kindly advise.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: aiam3536

Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your February 18, 1982, letter asking for a interpretation of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In particular, you question the requirement of section S5.3.3 which specifies that a continuous warning device shall sound when a school bus ignition is in the 'on' position and the release mechanism for an emergency door is not closed. You ask whether depressing the button on the outside of the door should activate the warning device.; The actual requirement of S5.3.3 states that the warning device must b audible when the *release mechanism* is not in the closed position. The release mechanism is that mechanism that keeps the door from opening. So, for example, if the outside button were depressed but the actual door latch did not open and the door would not itself open, it would not be necessary for the warning device to actuate. However, I assume that the outside button releases the latch which in turn allows the door to open. If this is the case, then at the moment that the latch is released, the warning device must be audible. If this did not occur, it would be possible that the door could be in an open position with the vehicle operating and without the knowledge of the occupants.; I hope that this resolves the question for you. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 2663o

Mr. Jay Costa
Assistant Procurement Specialist
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Bldg., 821 Second Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98104

Dear Mr. Costa:

I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#217 d:2/23/88

ID: nht79-4.53

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: HERBERT L. MISCH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter is in response to your letter of August 31, 1979, concerning the perceptions and realities of the safety of children in cars equipped with air bags.

On September 13, 1979, a team of senior level National Highway Traffic Safety Administration engineers and scientists visited Ford for discussions with your staff on the questions you raised in your letter. They reported to me that on the basis of their discussions, additional staff level discussions would be beneficial.

Federal regulations on automatic occupant crash protection, like all motor vehicle safety standards, are minimum requirements. Compliance with these requirements may not be sufficient to provide an adequate level of safety for all occupants under all circumstances. Manufacturers are expected to be responsible for the development, design, testing, and manufacture of safety systems in their cars that provide a level of safety that is consistent with the capability of the technology, the state of its development, and the practical constraints of motor vehicle mass production and marketing, as you indicate in your letter.

We disagree with your contention that responsibility for the protection of children, who are otherwise unrestrained and out of their normal seating position, significantly differs from the usual situation with other safety systems or other Federal requirements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered at various times adding further performance criteria to the requirements of FMVSS 208. However, the Agency is very reluctant to do so unless a substantial problem is identified that can only be addressed in this way. Such additional criteria tend to restrict innovations in designs and test procedures used by the manufacturers. They can also decrease the incentive to a manufacturer to try to achieve the safest possible systems because they freeze performance requirements, and inhibit innovation.

Ford has available to it the basic information (beyond that which is proprietary to other companies) and the resources that are available to the other automobile companies or to the government. You have substantial in-house expertise, and many independent experts and contractors are available to help assess: 1) the test protocols that are appropriate to measure the performance of restraint systems in frequent, high risk, real world situations; 2) the specific performance of Ford's air bag system; and 3) whether any modifications in the Ford system are warranted.

As we announced on Monday, October 1, 1979, in a press conference concerning General Motors' decision to postpone their 1981 introduction of air bags into production, I have appointed a special team to assess the basis of GM's decision. (A copy of my statement is enclosed.) The assessment has already begun, and will proceed for at least the next several months. This team will look at accident data and the position of occupants in cars at the time of a crash to determine the frequency and risk to vehicle occupants of various circumstances involving the restraint system. They will also assess the biomechanics and biofidelity of various surrogates used for occupants, particularly children in testing. We will keep you informed of the progress of this work as it goes forward.

We must not lose sight of the fact that air bags offer a very substantial potential for improving automobile occupant safety. The opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes to less than one half their present levels provides strong justification to commercialize these automatic restraints at the earliest practical date, provided due care has been exercised in the development and testing of systems for the variety of situations in which they will be needed.

I hope that these comments, and any assistance that our staff can provide, will be useful in resolving the questions you have about your air bag system. We also hope to see Ford as the first company to resume air bag production in the 1981 model year.

ID: aiam1680

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1974, to Mike Peskoe requesting our opinion that a draft label you plan to affix to the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Baby Chair will conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. Your letter indicates that although the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Baby Chair is not sold as a child seating system, you will be marketing a conversion kit which will enable purchasers to convert it into child seat use. With the conversion kit, the 2- in-1 Baby Chair will become the identical car child seat that you sell as the Bobby-Mac 2-in-1 Car Seat and the 3-in-1 Baby Chair.; We believe that attachment of the required label to the 2- in-1 Bab Chair, even though the chair is not a child seating system until the conversion kit is purchased, is the most satisfactory method of achieving conformity with Standard No. 213. Both of the additions you will make to the existing Bobby- Mac label are in keeping with the purpose of Standard No. 213's labeling requirements, and we will consider the draft label you enclose to conform to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 213 provided that the month and year of manufacture are included on the label.; As a suggestion, it seems to us that there should be a Part No reference to the conversion kit on the label. This might reduce any confusion with the other conversion kits that you offer for the other Bobby-Mac devices.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours Truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 21668.jeg

Romulo R. Frederick, Esq.
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
One River Plaza
4 West Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301





Dear Mr. Frederick:





This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for air bags. You are representing an individual who was seriously injured in a crash where the air bag in his 1995 passenger car failed to deploy. You stated that the automaker is denying liability "based on its Technical Analysis Group's review and conclusion 'the direct frontal collision forces were not within the threshold for deployment', and thus SRS deployment not warranted; even though the impact was well within 30 degrees of direct center of the vehicle." You asked whether there are any regulations governing air bag deployment and the conditions for deployment. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we issued, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) required 1995 passenger cars to provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The only two systems used to meet this requirement were air bags and automatic seat belts. An amendment to Standard No. 208 made air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks in the late 1990's.

Among other things, Standard No. 208 specifies that vehicles meet certain performance requirements in crash tests. These tests are conducted with instrumented test dummies placed in the front outboard seating positions of the vehicle. During the tests, the forces measured on the dummies may not exceed specified limits. However, the standard does not specify any crash severity threshold where the air bag must, or must not, deploy.

You also expressed interest in a list of vehicles that were recalled for defective air bags. NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation has previously provided that list.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/4/00