ID: 11294

Ms. Rita Cola Carroll
Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee
Great Valley School District
275 W. Central Avenue
Paoli, PA 19301

Dear Ms. Carroll:

This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208."

We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is:

Mr. Michael Ryan Governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-6815

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:222 d:11/21/95

ID: aiam4264

Dear Mr. Tank: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect t the definition of 'motorcycle' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.; The definition of a motorcycle is 'a motor vehicle with motive powe having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' This is techically (sic) inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say 'tires' rather than 'wheels.' Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehicle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT: William Shapiro,. P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs North American Car Operations Product Planning and Development Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of May 24, 1983, requesting an interpretation concerning the retraction force requirements to Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are considering a Type 2 seat belt design which includes an emergency locking retractor for continuous loop webbing and an emergency locking retractor for additional webbing at the inboard buckle portion of the system. You state that this inboard webbing is extended only if the belt is used by an extremely large occupant. You ask whether the retraction force requirements of the standard allow testing with the webbing of the entire system extended 75%, i.e., even if this mean; that no webbing is extended from the inboard retractor, so that the retraction force is actually only measured from the retractor for the continuous loop portion of the belt.

Paragraph @4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies that an emergency locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph @5.2(j) shall:

(1) expert a retroactive force of at least 0.6 pound under zero accelaration when attached only to the pelvic restraint: (5) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.1 pounds under zero acceleration when attached only to in upper torso restraint;

(6) exert a retroactive force of not less than 0.2 pound and not more than 1.5 pounds under zero acceleration when attached to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and pelvis.

The test procedures of paragraph @5.2 (j) specify that these retraction forces are to be measured with the belt webbing extended from the retractor to 75% of its length.

The requirements of @4.3(j) apply to each retractor on a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. There is no exception in the standard for a system which includes two or more retractors which exert force on the same belt webbing. Thus, both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the requirements of the standard independently of one another. Under the test procedure you suggest, the retraction force of the inboard retractor would not be measured. This is contrary to the explicit language of the standard. Both retractors on your proposed system would have to comply with the force requirements of paragraph @4.3(j) (6). This is true because both retractors are attached "to a strap or webbing that restrains both the upper torso and the pelvis." Therefore, the retraction force on your inboard retractor must be not less than 0. 2 pound and not greater than 1.5 pounds when the webbing on that retractor is extended to 75% of its length. The same is true for the retractor on the continuous loop portion of the system.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you might have had concerning these requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/87

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The undersigned represents United Tool and Stamping, Inc., a component supplier for seating systems used in motor vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles (motor homes). FMVSS 207 establishes a standard or performance requirements, using terminology such as "failure" or "shall withstand the following forces". My question is, what is NHTSA's current interpretation of what constitutes a "failure" or inability to "withstand forces".

It is my understanding from talking with various engineers, including Mr. Stan Fray from TRC of Ohio, who I understand performs some testing for NHTSA, that the currently accepted level of performance or definition of failure is that the seat must not se parate from the floor when the test forces are applied, although it may bend or deform. To state it another way, the seat may give, but must not break free from the floor.

Miss Diedre Hahn has indicated the proper way to obtain the answer to this question is to supply you with the question in writing. I would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Respectfully,

ID: aiam1054

Dear Bill: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1973, forwarding to m a copy of the preface to your forthcoming paper on the development of Standard No. 213, and asking a few questions which we have already discussed over the phone.; With respect to the preface, it is essentially accurate, at leas sufficiently so for the purpose for which it is intended.; The questions you've asked are repeated below, followed by our answers. 1.>>>What gives credibility to and what reduces credibility of comment filed with Docket 2-15? Are the comments of some organizations given more credence than others?<<<; Each comment to the docket is assumed to be of equal credibility tha is, we assume each is offered in good faith, and based upon the writer's legitimate beliefs and interests. The agency evaluates each submission on its own merits.; 2.>>>Do non-separating 3-point belts present a problem for usage o current child restraint systems?<<<; Our understanding is that child seats can be used with 3-point belts These belt systems do utilize one member that is essentially similar to the traditional lap belt. We understand the shoulder portions of these belts can be adjusted so as not to prevent installation of the child seat, by either placing that belt section in front of or behind the child seat. We have not received any information from the public that these belts are in fact difficult to use with child seats. If we do we will certainly look into the matter thoroughly.; 3.>>>Has NHTSA or will NHTSA be cooperating with JPMA on some kind o market survey?<<<; The NHTSA has forwarded a list of suggested questions, which are als in the docket. We do not expect our contribution to include more than recommending that these questions be asked.; 4.>>>To what extent is rulemaking determined by comments and b internal direction?<<<; This certainly depends on the issues involved. For the most part initial decisions are made by the agency, with modifications resulting from comments received. However, comments may affect some issues more than others. In Standard No. 213, for example, much impetus for a dynamic test has been created by comments.; We've recently amended the standard, based on two outstanding notice (September 30, 1970, April 10, 1971). In case you haven't seen the amendments, I have enclosed a copy.; Sincerely, Mike Peskoe, Attorney

ID: nht87-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1986, concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Those requirements provide that each safety belt is to be labeled with the year of its manufacture. You asked whether the yea r of manufacture can be shown in code. As explained below, the answer is no, the standard does not provide for showing the year of manufacture in code.

S4.1(j) of the standard requires each safety belt to be permanently and legibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer, the model of the safety belt model, and "the year of manufacture." The standard specifically requires the date of manufacture to be provided on the belt and does not provide for the use of a code to represent that date.

The purpose of the labeling requirement is to make it possible for the agency and consumers to identify easily the manufacturer of the safety belt for the purpose of noncompliance and safety-related defect investigations and notification and remedy campa igns. In addition, having the date of manufacture clearly marked on the belt assists consumers in determining whether a particular belt complies with the latest requirements of Standard No. 209 or some earlier version of those requirements. It also assis ts the agency in compliance testing of aftermarket and other safety belts because it enables the agency to determine easily which version of the standard should be applied to that safety belt. Having the year shown in a code can complicate the easy ident ification of which safety belts are covered by an investigation or campaign and make it more difficult to determine which version of the standard applies to the safety belt.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA SEP 19 1986 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

FMVSS 209 requires that a seat belt be labeled to show:

Manufacturer's name Seat belt model Year of manufacture

My question is: Can the year of manufacture be shown in code? It seems to me that such interpretation was once given by your agency.

I thank you in advance for your kind response.

Sincerely,

George Ziolo

PS: Your response by informal endorsement hereon will suffice for my guidance.

ID: 1984-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burt McMillian

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for information about rebuilt steel wheels for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. For the purposes of this response, I will respond only for the rim portion of the wheel, since both the regulations you inquired about apply only to rims, and not the entire wheel assembly. Specifically, you asked about the applicability of a regulation issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and this agency's Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). This agency does not offer opinions on the applicability of other Federal agency regulations, and Standard No. 120 does not apply to rebuilt rims.

You stated in your letter that one of OSHA's regulations states that "no cracked, broken, bent or otherwise damaged rim components shall be reworked, welded, brazed, or otherwise heated", and that OSHA interprets the center disc as a rim component subject to the requirements of that regulation. You further stated that a staff member in our Office of Defect Investigations offered his opinion that the OSHA regulation did not apply to the center disc. This agency does not interpret the regulations administered by other Federal agencies, unless and until such time as that regulation appears inconsistent with our statutory authority. There is no apparent conflict between the OSHA regulation and our authority, so we defer to their interpretation of that regulation.

You further stated in your letter that "the only other regulation concerning rebuilding wheels is NHTSA Standard No. 120 concerning identification of rebuilt wheels." We have stated in several past interpretations that Standard No. 120 does not apply to remanufactured or rebuilt rims. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 does set forth rim marking requirements, but these apply only to new rims. Section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (hereafter referred to as "the Safety Act") (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) specifies that the requirements of our safety standards shall not apply after the first purchase of a rim in good faith for purposes other than resale. Since the components of rebuilt rims have already been used on the public roads, the requirements of Standard No. 120 do not apply to the rebuilding of those rims.

You concluded your letter with the observation that these rims are subject to significantly more stress today than they were ten years ago, and that repaired or rebuilt rims should be "looked at". There is a course of action you might wish to pursue if you believe this perceived problem presents a serious threat. You may file a petition for rulemaking with this agency, asking us to establish some strength requirements for new rims. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall "knowingly render inoperative any . . . element of design installed on or in . . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, . . . " If Standard No.

120 were amended to include some strength requirements for new rims, those persons could violate section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act if they knowingly weaken the rims. For your information I have enclosed a copy of our regulation which sets forth the requirements for petitions for rulemaking (49 CFR Part 552). Should you choose to file such a petition, please pay particular attention to the requirements of @ 552.4, which explains the information which must be included in the petition.

I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and believe that the safety concerns of people like yourself who are daily involved with tires and rims are an invaluable help to this agency. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.

ENCLS.

LES SCHWAB WAREHOUSE CENTER INC.

June 26, 1984

Steve Kratzke Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

During a recent telephone conversation with Gary Woodford of NHTSA, he suggested I write to you and get your opinion on rebuilding truck wheels.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion over several regulations regarding rebuilding of steel truck wheels. OSHA regulation 1910.77 (F) 9. states "no cracked, broken, bent or otherwise damaged rim components shall be reworked, welded, brazed or otherwise heated". It is OSHA's opinion that the center disc is a rim component, therefore, cannot be welded. Mr. Woodford's opinion was that OSHA's jurisdiction only concerns lock rings or parts involved in mounting safety.

The only other regulation concerning rebuilding wheels is NHTSA standard120 concerning identification of rebuilt wheels. As I understand this regulation all that is required is some sort of stamp such as date, initials or trademark that is not registered or otherwise traceable.

My concern is that there are people welding and/or rebuilding wheels that have no concept of the engineering or design of steel wheels. As an example; recently I ran across a rebuilder who was cutting out the mounting surface of the disc and welding in a new one. When he bored the stud holes he was putting a chamfered or beveled seat instead of a ball seat. It is highly probable that unless excess amount of torque were applied to the cap nuts this wheel would come loose. The problem is that any tire service store that changes that wheel in the future then becomes liable if the wheel comes loose. The difference between a chamfered or beveled seat and a ball seat is so minute that most service people would never notice the difference.

With the advent of the radial tire, greater allowable weight limits and deregulation, wheels are subjected to a lot more stress than they were ten years ago. Therefore, wheels today must be of much better quality and it would seem that repairing of wheels or rebuilding them should be looked at.

I would appreciate you sending me any information or opinions on this subject that would help clear up this muddy situation.

Thank you.

Burt McMillan

ID: nht87-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jean-Paul Turgeon -- Security and Legality Manager, Prevost Car Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Inc Sainte-Claire, Quebec Canada

In your letter of November 7, 1986, to the Administrator, you have asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires intermediate Bide marker lamps to be mounted at approximately the same level as the front and rear marker lamps.

No. The requirement that they be located at or near the midpoint between front and rear side marker lamp refers to the horizontal distance between the front and rear lamps, and the intermediate lamps are subject only to the requirement that they not be m ounted less than 15 inches above the road surface.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S. 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.

Attention: Diane K. Steed, Administrator

Re: F.M.V.S.S. 571.S.108 Intermediate Side Markers (Table 2)

Dear Mrs. Steed:

We are looking for an interpretation of 5.108 regulation as follows:

It is specified on 5.108.20, Table 2, that the intermediate side marker be located at or near the mid point between the front and rear side marker lamps.

Our question is: Does that mean that the intermediate side marker must be approximately , the same level as the front and rear marker lamps, i.e. on the same level line?

Yours truly,

Jean-Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager

ID: nht80-1.36

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Mfg. & Equipment Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the request in your February 13, 1980, letter to this office, I am enclosing an up-to-date copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117).

You asked about the agency's "current position with respect to Standard No. 117 as to (1) passenger tires and (2) truck tires." The requirements of this standard apply to all retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires sold in the United States. As of this date, however, neither Standard No. 117 nor any other standard applies to retreaded truck tires.

If you have any further questions regarding the requirements of the enclosed standard or any other regulations of this agency, please contact Steve Kratzke of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN MFG.

& EQUIPMENT INC.

February 13, 1980

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

RE: Standard No. 117 (S5.2) MV22117 Federal Retread Standard

Dear Mr. Schneider:

May I inquire as to the Department's current position with respect to the referenced standard as to (1) passenger tires and (2) truck tires.

Would you be kind enough to provide us with a copy of Federal Retread Standards also.

Thanking you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

AMERICAN MFG. & EQUIPMENT INC.

Albert P. Penter President

ID: nht95-7.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, New York City Transit Authority

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM JOSEPH J. SMITH TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11187)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302), applies to air conditioning return air filters. You state that these filters are placed on top of the air conditioning evaporator coil and are separated from the bus interior by a louvered panel. You were concerned that the filters may be subject to Standard No. 302 because they may be considered located in the "occupant compartment air space." As explained below, Standard No. 302 does not apply to air conditioning return filters.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Section S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in section S4.1 is not subject to those requirements. Therefore, an air conditioning return filter is not subject to those requirements.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of products related to motor vehicles. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating air conditioning filters in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.