ID: nht69-1.18

DATE: 02/11/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Payne, Barlow and Green, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr., M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Scat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.

The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 were previously included in "Standard for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9; 31 F.R. 11528)" which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.

We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats and I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a proposed regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.

There are no other existing Federal standards on child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

January 23, 1969

William Haddon, Director National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Haddon:

I am seeking information regarding Federal Standards for Child Restraint Devices and will appreciate your furnishing same to me as soon as it is convenient for you.

I am attempting to measure the adequacy of a particular device that apparently contributed to a child's injury that occurred on May 15, 1968. I do not know the date of manufacture of this device but it is important that I obtain an itemization of minimum standards that have applied for several years.

Sincerely,@@53:426

ID: 1984-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Minot Public Schools -- Gary D. Brevig

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Brevig Minot Public Schools 215 Second Street S.E. Minot North Dakota 58701

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which we received on October 19, 1984. Your letter enclosed a prior letter you wrote on December 6, 1983 which, we regret, we never received. You asked several questions about the Federal school bus safety standards and the use of 12 to 16 passenger vans and Greyhound-type buses for extracurricular activities.

Our answers immediataly follow your questions which we have restated below.

1. Are 12 to 16 passenger vans illegal to use for extracurricular activities? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is unlawful to sell a new vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons that will be used to transport school children to and from extracurricular activities, unless the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards issued under the Act. Under the Act, all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school children to or from schools or events related to such schools must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and therefore cannot be sold for such use.

Strictly speaking, it is not "illegal" for schools to use ordinary 12 ta 16 passenger vans which are not certified to the school bus safety standards. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. However, we caution schools using these vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident.

2. If conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans are illegal, can we remove a seat to make them conform to the 10 passenger size limit of Type II vehicles?

As we said in our answer to your question, it is not unlawful under the Vehicle Safety Act for you to operate conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans to carry students. If you own a van of this size, there would be no statutory reason for you to remove a seat.

Keep in mind, however, that a dealer who sells you a van designed to carry more than 10 persons must see to it that the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards. If the dealer removes a seat, so that the vehicle would no longer have the seating capacity to be a school bus, he would

thereby convert it into a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would face the need to meet the standards applicable to that category of vehicle including the installatian of safety belts for all seats.

Our regulations do not prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles in any way it chooses. The school need not assure that the vehicle complies with any safety standards. Again, however, we urge you to consider the possibility of substantial liability if such a vehicle is involved in an accident. You may want to discuss this matter with your attorney and insurance company.

3. Are Greyhound-type buses legal to use or own? If not, why?

As discussed above, under the Vehicle Safety Act requires buses sold to transport school children to or from extracurricular activities to be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be said for use as a school bus.

4. Would it be legal to go to Hertz and rent a 12 passenger van to send the FFA to their national convention?

We assume that you are asking whether a school may rent a vehicle on a one time basis to meet an unusual school need. The answer is yes. Nothing precludes a school from renting any vehicle on a one time or very occasional basis. This type of rental vehicle would not be "significantly used" to transport school children and, therefore, would not be a school bus according to the definition cited above.

5. Would it be legal to send a bus load of choir students on a spring trip to Denver by chartering Greyhound?

As explained in our answer to your fourth question, renting a Greyhound bus on an occasional basis, such as the case appears to be here, would not be prohibited.

6. Is it legal to contact your local charter bus company to take your basketball team to its game 250 miles away?

As indicated above, a vehicle may be rented on an occasional basis to meet a school need which cannot be met using conventional school buses. However, a long term relationship between a charter bus or leasing company and a school to provide transportation to school events constitutes a "significant use," within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, a dealer cannot sell a bus to a charter bus company if the dealer knows that the bus will be used to provide school transportation to basketball games on a regular basis unless the bus is certified as meeting the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your final question asked whether there are any forthcoming regulations or amendments pertaining to the questions you have asked. Currently, we do not anticipate rulemaking actions pertaining to the definition, certification and use of school buses.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/89

FROM: ROBERT C. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TO: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. SMITH, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 222; LETTER FROM MAUREEN ANDREWS TO ROBERT C. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Secretary Skinner:

Recently, I have been contacted by constituents concerned about school bus safety.

At your earliest convenience, would you please provide me with information regarding federal responsibility and regulation in this area? Moreover, I would appreciate the same type of information on the issue of safety belts on school buses. Has the Department of Transportation conducted any studies on safety belts in school buses? Finally, the concern has been expressed to me that the seating of three children per seat is unsafe due to the crowded conditions and children falling off or being pushe d out of the seat. I would appreciate your specifically addressing this matter.

Thank you for your assistance.

With warm regards,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht92-6.30

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

I have spoken with Mr. Cohen who asked me to direct my questions to you in writing.

USSC is a supplier of suspension seats for drivers to transit buses. Our customers, SCRTD in Los Angeles, has asked us to develop a system whereby our suspension seats can tilt from side-to-side. This is meant to compensate for the slanted roads in LA that facilitate water run off.

We are, of course, aware of 207/210 and do not believe that tilt system will meet the performance requirements. In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

We request an answer by mail or fax by June 15, 1992. This will allow us enough time to respond to SCRTD's June 19th deadline.

If you have any questions, please call.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht71-2.40

DATE: 05/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1971, requesting our interpretation of the term "provision" as used in the definition of seat belt assembly anchorage in Standard No. 210 (35 F.R. 18116, November 26, 1970).

The change from the use of the word "device" in the prior issuance of the rule (35 F.R. 15293) to the use of "provision" in the November 26 issuance was made to avoid any appearance of requiring a specific type of structure.

A hole capable of accepting a seat belt assembly's attaching hardware would therefore qualify as an anchorage. It would not, of course, be an anchorage conforming to Standard No. 210 unless it could also withstand the forces specified in that standard.

Please advise us if you have further questions on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.36

DATE: 12/07/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARK W. RUSSO

COPYEE: MICHAEL F. HECKER -- MICHO INDUSTRIES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM MARK W. RUSSO TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 7817); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 to the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System and related issues. I note that on July 13, 1992, I sent you copies of five previous NHTSA letters which addressed the use of "safety bars" in school buses. In your new letter, you expressed a number of safety concerns about the R-Bar and asked whether there have been any further development at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since May 14, 1992, the date of the most recent of the five letters I sent to you.

We have issued one additional letter concerning Standard No. 222 and the use of "safety bars" in school buses. The letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Michael F. Hecker of Micho Industries on July 14, 1992, and concerned how the R-Bar should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222. As discussed in that letter, a school bus must meet the requirements of Standard No. 222 with a "safety bar" in every position at which it may be placed.

I also note that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that devices such as "safety bars" were exposing occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as by excessive abdominal or leg loading during a crash, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

If you have any further questions or need any additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 8234

Mr. Donald Ray McCray
620694, Darrington Unit
Rt. 3
P.O. Box 59
Rosharon, TX 77583

Dear Mr. McCray:

This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 to former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety.

Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated.

NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:2/9/93

ID: 1983-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flxible Corporation -- Charles R. Sidner, Product Safety Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer Grumman Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Sidner:

This responds to your March 31, 1983, letter asking about the lo-air pressure warning device that is required by Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular you ask whether the requirement must be met with two switches, one on the primary and one on the secondary air tank, or whether one switch on the supply tank would be sufficient.

S5.l.5 of the standard states that a warning signal shall be provided to give a continuous warning of a loss of pressure in the service reservoir system below 60 p.s.i. The intent of the section clearly is to provide a warning to a driver of any instance that results in a loss of pressure in either the primary or secondary service reservoir system.

Dependinq upon the design of any individual brake system, it might be necessary for more than one switch to ensure that the driver will be alerted to such an air loss. For example, a single switch on the supply tank might be inadequate to signal a loss of pressure in the primary or secondary service reservoir system if the action of the compressor masks such loss of pressure. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its system is designed in a way that requires more than one switch.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 31, 1983

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: (a) FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems S5.l.5 Warning Signal

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation/ clarification of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation of lo-air pressure switches on our Flxible-METRO transit coach.

In accordance with S5.l.5, as we interpret the standard, when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the pressure in the service reservoir system is below 60 ps, there shall be a signal either visible....or both audible or visible.

In order to attain this signal, we have positioned a lo-air pressure switch, electrically operated at both the primary and secondary air tank (service reservoir system).

The issue for interpretation is whether the two lo-air switches on both the primary and secondary tanks are necessary to meet the requirement, or if one lo-air switch on the supply tank only to activate the warning signal is adequate to meet the requirements of S5.1.5.

We shall continue to locate a lo-air switch on both the primary and secondary tanks until we are advised otherwise.

Sincerely,

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CORPORATION

Charles R. Sidner, CPSM Product Safety Engineer

cc: E. Kravitz J. Bolton L. Musser T. Schubach

ID: nht92-8.28

DATE: March 11, 1992

FROM: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Frank Rumpeltin; Rob Wise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark A. Sedlack (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a written clarification of an issue involving FMVSS 213 compliance testing. I have spoken to both Mike Pine and Dee Fujita about this issue and was told that a decision was pending.

It has been Century's understanding that any child restraint which was labeled for use by a child over 20 pounds would be tested using three year old part 572 dummy. The procedure is readily apparent in the standard for forward-facing child restraints. However, it is not readily apparent how a rear-facing seat could be tested using the three-year old dummy, particularly in how the dummy is to be installed.

As a result of recommendations published by various consumer safety groups, telling people to (ignore the manufacturer-a instructions and) use using rear-facing child restraints up to 25 pounds, we have tested our existing convertible seats with a CAMI dummy modified to twenty-five pounds with satisfactory results.

We have not, however, changed our labels or instructions to reflect the higher weight because of the above stated understanding.

Our next step is to test these seats with the three-year old dummy, but we are not clear, nor is the testing facility, as to how this procedure is to be accomplished.

We have recently become aware of a child restraint available at retail which is labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds, and must assume that the procedure for testing has been clarified. If this is the case, could you provide us with a written clarification as to how rear-facing testing is to be done for a child restraint labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds.

ID: nht94-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 2, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Frink -- Engineering Manager, Avionic Structures, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 07/11/94 from Paul Frink to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 10177)

TEXT: This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206).

Your letter stated that your company manufacturers a door and frame system designed for installation on a "recreational motor home," which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri/Mark a ssures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question.

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. T he statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set f orth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the no ncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy t he defect free of charge.

For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is def ined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3; see enclosed) as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, th e standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requiremen ts of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this ste p area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206.

To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would "certify" compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the c omponents of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" n1 and "Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations," respectively.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

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