ID: 21124.drn

John A. Green, Supervisor
California Department of Education
Office of School Transportation
721 Capitol Mall
P. O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 94244-2720






Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system.

You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing.

You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

(1)	Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment, and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
(2)	Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and
(3)	Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1.    Does testing of any product in an independent testing facility (other than [by] a manufacturer) certify that the product meets applicable FMVSS?

The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification.

Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.

2.    Does NHTSA certify independent testing facilities?

The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

3.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. ⁽¹⁾

If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

4.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system make inoperative the school bus's compliance with Standard No. 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.

5.    Does the Safe-T-Bar attachment to a school bus passenger seat back reduce or compromise the effectiveness of compartmentalization?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar:

As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant retraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses.

The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading.

In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.

6.    If a school bus were retrofitted with the Safe-T-Bar system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222
d.9/25/00

---

1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

ID: nht72-2.44

DATE: 05/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. H. Wallace for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The following interpetations are submitted in response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.

1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet and measured by the ASTH E-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.

2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure" means any electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.

3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antilock warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.

4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to a failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.

5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressure is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.

6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of any auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.

7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the service brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 168 states "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes."

8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to be eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.

9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the trailer at the start of the (Illegible Words).

10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towing vehicle are expected to be operating normally.

11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by passed by any convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.

12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable.

13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacturer for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.

14. Same answer as for 13 above.

15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3

16. Same (Illegible Word) answer for 15 above.

17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for a air (Illegible Word) hydraulic brake systems, the "brake chamber air pressure" is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.

18. Same answer as for question 17.

19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses only the GAWR of each individual axle.

20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on each individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.

21. In S5.6.2(a) "Gross vehicle weight rating is correct for semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses; gross axle weight rating is not meant.

22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from the meeting of the alternate requirement of S5.6.2.

23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle.

24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloaded semi-trailer.

25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamometer inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION WAGNER DIVISION

March 16, 1972

Elwood T. Driver, -- Director, Office of Operating Systems, NHTSA Gentlemen:

We recently provided our customers with copies of the original FMVSS-121 with the Notice 3 amendments noted thereon. This action has resulted in much discussion on product availability and system simplicity. Certain portions of FMVSS-121 have prompted this request for clarification and interpretation in order to better direct our test and development efforts toward customer solutions for the more exacting compliance investigations that will be carried on in the immediate future.

Each of these items is identified individually in the event a partial response can be made immediately - should a reply to some items be deferred.

The S4 definition for determination for skid number states ". . . omitting water delivery . . ." from the ASTM method. The summary statement for the Federal Register Notice 3 emphasizes the need to test on wet pavement. Sections S5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.2 state ". . . on a wet surface with a skid number of 30 . . .". Table II has a column headed Wet Skid No. 30. Table I has a reference to ". . . skid number of 30. . ." which does not disringuish between wet and dry, and lacks consistency in the instructions.

Question 1. Is the 30 skid number determined with or without water delivery? (We would assume it to be with water delivery in view of the specific references cited. A skid number of 30 on a dry surface and subsequent testing with that surface wetted does not control the friction level of the wetted surface for uniformity in compliance testing).

There is still some ambiguity in S5.1.6 concerning ". . . a total electrical failure . . ." although the Notice 3 amendments have significantly improved this section.

Question 2. What is meant by the phrase ". . . total electrical failure . . ."? (The next two questions reflect some of our thoughts).

Question 3. In multi-axle systems where each axle has a separate control package, is it permissible for one or more axle sections to be inoperative and no signal announced as long as one axle section of the total system remains electrically intact?

Question 4. Or should the requirement for warning be limited to a failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection? (If power fails at battery terminals the warning device will not work).

Air over hydraulic systems employ a variety of power cylinder or power chambe types coupled to master cylinders for the pressure conversion.

Question 5. Are we correct in interpreting S5.1.7 that the 6 psi control pressure is measured in the air powered component of an air over hydraulic system even though it is not specifically a ". . . service brake chamber"?

Question 6. A popular auxiliary service brake control is the hand actuated application valve that requires rotary motion and is not depressed (Ref. S5.1.7). Is it intended to allow or exclude this option for manual actuation?

Question 7. Assuming the option of Question 6 is permitted - for tractor use to control the trailer of a combination vehicle - is it correct that the service brake stop lamp switch should be actuated by either control means and not by the foot control only?

Question 8. Is it the intent of S5.2.1.2 for only the "service" reservoirs to be used in calculating total volume, that is, exclude the isolated reservoirs provided for parking brake release?

In S5.3.1 Stopping distance - trucks and buses, there is a procedural requirement of 6 stops for each test phase in Table I. This is not permitted in S5.3.2 - Stopping capability - trailers. Hence for each single stop in the sequence specified in Table I we ask:

Question 9. Is the 90 psi the starting pressure for each stop?

Question 10. Is there intended to be any allowance for maintaining normal replacement of air pressure from the tractor compressor during the stopping tests?

Question 11. Are we at liberty to use any convenient means we choose to bypass the application of the towing vehicle brakes?

Since the items 4 and 5 of the Table I stopping sequence refer only to S5.7.2.3 conformance (Emergency stopping distance - trucks and buses) and S5.8, Emergency braking capability - trailers brakes no provision for hydraulic (Illegible Word) of the trailer emergency system we ask:

Question 12. In S5.3.2 should the instructions limit ". . . each combination of weight, speed, and road conditions . . . specified in Table I . . ." to only items 1,2 and 3 of Table I?

In S5.4 Service brake systems - dynamometer, the second sentence is still ambiguous.

"A brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements of this section."

S5.4.1.1 requires burnish per S6.2.6 before conducting the procedure that establishes the Brake Retardation Force Curve. Therefore these inferences:

Question 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer and if it does not conform to S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, it does not disqualify the brake; correct?

Question 14. May a truck tested brake later be run on a dynamometer procedure to develop the characteristics required in S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3? (That is, benefit from a double burnish).

Question 15. If a truck tested brake does not conform, a different brake may be tested on the dynamometer to qualify the assembly according to S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Correct?

Question 16. If some other interpretation is intended, what is that intent? (The sentence under discussion only seems a valid part of the text if Question 14 is answered in the affirmative).

As in Question 5, there are special conditions applicable for hydraulic disc and drum brakes used in air over hydraulic systems. Therefore the "brake chamber air pressure" reference in S5.4.1 may be construed to be the pressure in the air powered element of air over hydraulic systems.

Question 17. Is this a correct interpretation?

Question 18. Assuming the answer to 17 is in the affirmative, is it correct that similar pressure sensing is applicable to the instructions of S5.4.1.1, S5.4.2.1, S5.4.2.2, S5.4.3, and Table III?

There appears to be a need to provide an NHTSS definition for axle rating when establishing the GAWR value to S5.6.1 requirements for the S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 options contained in S5.6.

Question 19. Is the conventional tandem rear axle considered to be a pair of single axles, each having a rating equal to one-half the tandem rating?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then the calculations of S5.6.1 permit a vehicle with a tandem rear axle to have a parking brake system on only one of the individual axles of that tandem. There appears to be no requirement for "a parking brake system acting on each axle except steerable front axles" as previously stated in S5.4 of the original FMVSS-121 (Notice 2).

Question 20. Is this a valid interpretation?

In S5.6.2 Grade holding - the term gross vehicle weight rating is appropriate for trucks, buses, tractors and full trailers. It does not seem appropriate to semi-trailers - especially when considered in conjunction with S6.1.9 that permits an unbraked dolly to support the front end of a semi-trailer. The GVWR of a semi-trailer is not defined as explicitly as any other vehicle and is not adequately covered in the general definitions section of Part 571, 49 CFR 571.3(b).

Question 21. Does S5.6.2(b) mean the GAWR of the axles on a semi-trailer rather than ". . . the gross vehicle weight rating. . ."?

Question 22. If the answer to 21 is negative, was the intent to eliminate the Grade Holding option permitted in S5.6.2 as one of the S5.6 options for semi-trailers?

Question 23. Is a converter dolly classed as a separate vehicle and classified as a "trailer"?

Question 24. If 23 is answered in the affirmative, is the converter dolly empty loading to be specified with an unloaded semi-trailer attached?

It has been an industry practice to combine a pair of axles (each rated at one value for single axle duty) and give the resultant tandem axle a lesser rating: e.g., two 18,500-pound single axles become a 34,000-pound tandem.

Question 25. Is it correct for dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1 that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel be one-fourth the tandem axle rating?

(e.g., for the above illustration a wheel load of 8,500 pounds).

If we can expedite a response by discussing these points by telephone, the writer may be reached at (314) 432-5800.

We can appreciate the task that your Office faces in developing meaningful interpretations and hope that our discussions have given you an insight into the problems of semantics that the industry must resolve to avoid costly delays in testing or design activity. We will greatly appreciate the attention your staff must direct to this lengthy submission.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

cc: L. R. Schneider, Code 40-30 -- Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1986, asking for our advice on a decorative lighting device for motorcycles.

The general principle remains the same as when I last explained it to you. Please refer to my letter to you dated March 24, 1986 (copy enclosed) on the relationship of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to auxiliary lighting devices for motorcycles. If you conclude that the device would not impair the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 then paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

You may follow this guideline with reference to any future questions you may have about the permissibility of auxiliary motor vehicle lighting devices. The agency does not approve or disapprove of specific items of lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 7, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: Instlallation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose an illustration and a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp. Lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. Drawing 1 : The outlines of the device Drawing 2 : The details of the device (Graphics here)

ID: 1984-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Collier-Keyworth Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Batt Chief Engineer, Juvenile Division Collier-Keyworth Company Gardner, Massachusetts 01440

Dear Mr. Batt:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking how the requirements of section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, apply to a sample child restraint belt buckle you provided the agency. You specifically asked whether the buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle or a lever-release buckle.

Your buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle since a person opens the buckle by pushing down on a specified surface. The lever-release buckle refers to a type of buckle which is opened by lifting a portion of the buckle. For example, the buckles found on airplane safety belts and some racing safety belts are lever-release buckles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 19, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel Mr. Steve Kratzke National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20950

RE: Sample Buckle

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about a child restraint belt buckle.

Enclosed is a sample buckle that is only indicative of the design that we want to know about, and how it might be covered by the regulations imposed on child restraints. Please bear in mind that structural strength, corrosion resistance, and temperature resistance properties can all be addressed with alternatives to the materials that the sample buckle is made of.

What we really want to know is, does this design conform to the lever requirements of FMVSS 209? Will this design be considered to be a push button configuration, or will it be considered to be a lever configuration?

We need to know the proper designation in order to correctly design the physical shape of a newly proposed buckle.

I thank you.

Very truly yours,

COLLIER-KEYWORTH COMPANY

Richard L. Batt

Chief Engineer Juvenile Division RLB/dlc Enclosure

ID: nht79-3.50

DATE: 07/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1979, letter asking whether side push-out window exits in school buses installed pursuant to State requirements must be marked in accordance with the emergency exit requirements of S5.5.3 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you want to know whether these additional exits must be labeled on the bus exterior.

Section S5.5.3 of the standard requires that "[each] school bus emergency exit provided in accordance with S5.2.3.1 shall have the designation . . . . on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. Section S5.2.3.1, in turn, requires that school buses be equipped with a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. Taken together, these two sections require that the required rear or side emergency door or rear push-out window must be appropriately marked on the inside and outside of the bus.

As the agency has frequently stated, all exists installed in school buses beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 need not comply with the exit requirements applicable to school bus exits. All additional exists must comply, however, with the other sections of the standard applicable to non-school buses. In this case, the additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of the standard. Neither of these paragraphs requires the exit to be marked on the bus exterior.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

June 11, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation % National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The State of New York Department of Transportation has raised a question concerning the exterior labeling of side push-out windows in school buses. Specifically, they maintain that Section S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217 requires that side emergency push-out windows specified in the New York school bus standard be labeled on the outside of the bus as specified in this section. Wayne maintains that only the rear emergency door, side emergency doors, and rear push-out windows are required to be labeled on the exterior in accordance with the requirements of S5.5.3.

Please advise which of these interpretations is correct. Would you please send a copy of your reply to Mr. Martin Chauvin at the following address.

Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau New York State Department of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue State Campus Albany, New York 12232

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

CC: MARTIN CHAUVIN

ID: nht80-3.29

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baker Equipment Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Deeter Baker Equipment Engineering Company P.O. Box 25609 Richmond, Virginia 23260

Dear Mr. Deeter:

This is in reply to your letter of June 23, 1980, to Mr. Finkelstein of this agency.

You have enclosed a drawing showing clearance lamps mounted on the widest and highest part of a truck body but in that location their light causes undesirable reflections in the truck's rearview mirrors. You have asked if a relocation to the truck cab would be an acceptable substitution since many of the chassis-cabs you now receive have a combination turn signal/front side marker lamp mounted on the fenders, "which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement of this lamp".

We have no objection to relocation of the clearance lamps to the cab on the configuration you have described since the utility body is not higher than the truck cab and the position of the front lamp is, for all practical purposes, as wide as the utility body. This is a location frequently used for clearance lamps and we believe that they would be perceived as such, even though the truck body is slightly wider than the extremities of the cab. Because a potential hazard to the driver would be diminished by this relocation, we believe that this would better meet the needs of motor vehicle safety. Further, in the relocated position, the clearance lamps would not be blocked by the front fender mounted combination lamps.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 23, 1980

Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

I had previously written you concerning the subject of clearance lights on the front of utility bodies in my letter of October 19, 1980.

Your answer of November 19, 1979 indicated that this request would be considered along with a TBEA petition to revise FMVSS 108.

Have any changes or decisions been rendered? I'm particularly interested since many of the chassis / cabs we are now receiving have a combination turn and front side marker light mounted on the chassis / cab fender (position 4a.), which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement for this lamp.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

Cordially,

John Deeter Director of Operations

JD/cm Attachment

ID: nht80-3.40

DATE: 08/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, asking whether various parts of your Peterson 78 Child Restraint must comply with section 4.3(a) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. As explained below, the buckle slides located behind the seat and below the unit and the buckle release button must comply with section 4.3(a) and (b) of the standard. The adjustment lever plate does not have to comply with those sections.

Section S5.4.2 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, provides that "Each belt buckle and item of belt adjustment hardware used in a child restraint shall conform to the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS 209(S571.209)." As shown in the illustration accompanying your letter, the purpose of the slides located below the unit and behind the seat is to adjust the harness system within the child restraint. Thus they are items of belt adjustment hardware and must comply with S4.3(a) and (b) of Standard No. 209. Likewise, section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 213 specifically identifies the belt buckle as an item which must comply with S4.3(a) and (b) of Standard No. 209. The adjustment lever plate on your restraint adjusts the position of the child restraint from fully upright to fully reclining. It does not adjust the child restraint harness system, however. Thus, the lever plate is not an item of belt adjustment hardware covered by section 5.4.2 of Standard No. 213.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 30, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Because of some interpretation differences in our own ranks concerning the Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems Requirements for Belt Buckles and Belt Adjustment Hardware, we need an official interpretation of some specific parts of our Peterson 78 Child Restraint.

Please refer to the attached illustration showing the child restraint parts. The slides behind the seat and below the unit, the adjustment lever plate, and the buckle release button are the parts in question.

Do these specific parts have to be in compliance with Standard No. 209 S4.3A or will nickle chrome or a zinc finish be adequate as the parts do not come into contact with the occupant.

Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Don Gerken Product Engineer

ENCL.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-1.19

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1980, asking whether a partial vehicle identification number (VIN) may be stamped into the frame of the Suzuki motorcycles under the certification label.

The answer is yes. The use of identifying numbers other than the VIN is allowed if the numbers cannot be confused with the VIN. In the situation you described, the identifying number would be hidden from view by the certification label. Since the label is required to be riveted or permanently affixed to the vehicle (Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations), the hidden identifying number is not likely to become visible during the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there appears to be no chance that the number would be confused with the VIN.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 7, 1980

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS No. 115 - Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request an interpretation by your Agency regarding Section S4.3 of the Standard.

Suzuki as required by Part - 567 Certification (@ 567.4(g)(6) ) will place the Vehicle Identification Number on the Motorcycle Certification Label.

Suzuki wishes to also stamp, using 5mm Sans Serif characters, the Vehicle Identification Number minus the check digit onto the headpipe of the motorcycle (at the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars). This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be for internal use by the Company prior to the Certification label being affixed on the headpipe of the motorcycle.

This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be entirely covered by the Certification label when it is affixed to the motorcycle.

We wish to obtain your interpretation if such a plan would be permissible under the standard, by not including the check digit in the second application of the Vehicle Identification number, whereas it would not be visible to either the consumer or Law Enforcement Personnel unless the label had been removed from a motorcycle. We believe that this number, even though it was missing the check digit, would be helpful in identifying such a motorcycle.

We would appreciate being advised of your opinion at the earliest possible date regarding this request.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.;

F. Michael Petler -- Manager, Government Relations Department

ID: nht94-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council

TITLE: FMVSS 208 -- Seating Reference Points

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TREVOR BUTTLE (A42; STD. 208; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: My responsibility within McLaren Cars at the moment is for the homologation within Europe of the F1 road car.

I have been asked to generate a programme and budget for a possible Federal version of this vehicle, and in that context, I have a specific query on Standard 208. I have been told by Mr. Taylor Vincent that you are the man to contact for this.

My reading of the standard is that passive restraints are required only for the front outboard designated seating positions, and that the front centre designated seating position is required to be fitted with a type 1 or type 2 (active) seat belt. The c onfiguration of the F1 places the driver exactly on the longitudinal centre line of the vehicle, and two rear seats (each provided with a type 2 belt) either side of this position. I believe therefore, that although the driver's seating position is prov ided with a four point harness (i.e. not a type 1 or type 2 belt) for Europe, compliance with the standard is generally demonstrated.

Could you please process this enquiry.

FAX

To Ms. Mary Versailles

Office of Chief Council

FROM Trevor Buttle

DATE 8/9/94

SUBJECT FMVSS 208-SEATING REFERENCE POINTS

With reference to our discussion just now, I am 'faxing drawing 1P0004 which should help with my enquiry.

To clarify, the driver seating reference (R) point is shown as X2175 and the passenger seating reference points are shown as X2495, being therefore 320 mm rearward of the driver reference point. The driver 'R' point is described as "(rearmost)" because the seat has 100mm forward travel from that point, unlike the passenger seats, which are fixed with no adjustment.

For all type approval purposes, the passenger seating positions have been regarded and certified as rear row seats.

Please let me know if you require any further information or back-up data for the enquiry. As I mentioned, I will be on vacation from August 24 until September 7, and in my absence, you should contact Mr. Barry Lett for any technical data.

Thank you for your help thus far.

Best regards

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht75-5.46

DATE: 09/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Jack Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motac's August 7, 1975, request for a determination that two platform trailers which are designed with a primary cargo-carrying surface which is less than 40 inches above the ground would qualify for exclusion from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if manufactured before September 1, 1976.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment to Standard No. 121 which excludes heavy hauler trailers from the requirements of the standard until September 1, 1976. You should note that the "40-inch cargo-carrying surface" criterion is measured in the unloaded condition, and that the body must not be equipped with sidewalls unless they are easily removable.

There is no requirement that the vehicle be designed for a certain type of cargo such as heavy machinery. Therefore your semi-trailers may qualify for the exclusion if they meet the criteria listed in the definition of heavy hauler trailer.

SINCERELY,

August 7, 1975

Department of Transportation

Attention: James B. Gregory Administrator

Regarding: FMVSS 121 Air Brake System- Trucks, Buses & Trailers. Clarification of docket no. 74-10; notice 5 and docket no's. 70-16, 70-17; notice no. 2.

We would appreciate your clarification of the above referenced documents regarding "Heavy Hauler Trailer", item 2, which states that "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, etc.", is exempt from the antilock brake until Sept. 1, 1976.

We manufacture commercial platform trailers of various types at our West Coast factory. One type of trailer is a drop frame low platform semi-trailer, both single and tandem axle in lengths from 26 ft. long to 45 ft. long. They are equipped with 8:25 x 15 tires, therefore the "primary cargo-carrying surface", aft of the gooseneck drop, is 36 inches for the single axle semi-trailers and 39" for the tandem axle trailers from the ground.

These trailers are used for transporting furniture containers (4' long, x 8' wide x 8' plus or minus high), full grown nursury trees in large root containing boxes, or many types of general freight that is compatible to a drop frame low platform semi-trailer.

Since these trailers comply with the deck height of 40 inches or less for their primary "cargo-carrying surface", please advise if they are exempt from the antilock brake equipment. These trailers are not designed to transport such items as "crawler tractors, boom cranes, heavy machinery, etc."

MOTAC, INC.

Jack Johnson

Chief Engineer