ID: 86-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tim O. Edwards -- Safety Specialist, Kansas Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interior over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered "projections likely to cause injury" under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to :

Mr. Norman Loper Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Education 304 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130

Requests for modification to these Standards and development of new Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Asst. State Supt. for Transportation Dept. of Education Education Bldg. Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

In response to your second question, there are no federal standards or regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be, located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.

Please feel free to contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

Didre Hom, Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Hom:

In August of this year an inspection was made of a school bus in Caney, Kansas. The Highway Patrol Officer making the inspection determined that the interior over-head luggage racks found on the bus few within the National Minimum (Interior) Standards adopted by Kansas as "a projection likely to cause injury".

This has raised the question of how to handle similar luggage racks on other buses. We would request your agencies opinion on the following questions:

1. Is an interior luggage rack "a projection likely to cause injury?

2. Are there any federal standards, regulations, etc., which would specifically address this problem?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please address your response to:

Kansas Department of Transportation ATTN: Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

Sincerely

CONNIE HAFENSTINE, CHIEF BUREAU OF PERSONNEL SERVICES

TIM O. EDWARDS SAFETY SPECIALIST II

ID: nht95-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. P. Corrado -- Director, Market Development, GenCorp Aerojet Electronic Systems Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM A. P. CORRADO TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Corrado:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with respect to automatic cut-off devices for air bags. You requested confirmation that the standard "does not preclude the use of inflatable restraint systems that by design inhibit deployment of a passenger air bag in those identifiable cases where the likelihood and severity of passenger injury would be greater with air bag deployment than without." You specifically cited the cas e of out-of-position passengers. As discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash con ditions specified in the standard.

NHTSA addressed the legality of both automatic and manual air bag cutoff devices in the context of a recent rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices under special circumstances. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in October 1994, the agency explained that automatic cutoff devices for passenger side air bags are already permitted by Standard No. 208. However, the devices must be designed to automatically ensure that the air bag is activated under the dynamic crash test conditions spe cified in the standard, i.e., in a 30 mph barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat. See discussion at 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994. I have enclosed a copy of that notice for your information, as well as a co py of the recently issued final rule.

I would like to note a safety issue that is relevant to the design of automatic cutoff devices for air bags. Standard No. 208's requirements for air bags are intended to provide safety benefits for a much broader set of real world conditions than the na rrow conditions specified in the standard's dynamic crash test, i.e., at a greater number of speeds and frontal impact angles, for many different sizes of occupants, etc. The agency recognizes the safety benefits that can be provided by well-designed au tomatic cutoff devices that can sense rear facing infant restraints and other possible special situations where deactivation is appropriate. At the same time, NHTSA believes it is important for manufacturers developing automatic cutoff devices to ensure that the devices do not deactivate air bags under circumstances where the air bags would provide important safety benefits.

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

ID: nht92-7.16

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/20/92 from John W. Phillips to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2669

Dear Mr. Ambro: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.; As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (cop enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect 'recall campaign.' We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: nht72-3.41

DATE: 02/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lempco Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, on the subject of an automobile dealer's obligations regarding seatbelts in new cars.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires seatbelts to be installed at all seating positions. Under the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, which we administer, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. A dealer may not, therefore, sell an automobile that does not have the required number of seatbelts.

Although the act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle from removing the belts, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him to leave the belts in and to wear them. A dealer who removes the belts after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.

ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

ID: nht76-4.46

DATE: 04/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 15, 1976, question whether a passenger car is considered a convertible for purposes of compliance with motor vehicle safety standards if its roof includes a "sun roof" or has two removable sections fitted into the roof over the outboard front designated seating positions in such a fashion that they do not join each other (Hurst Hatch Roof). You also request confirmation that convertibles are excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and are required to meet S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The answer to your first question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst Hatch Roof" do not qualify as convertible, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location.

With regard to your other question, passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1976, inclusive, are required to meet one of three options specified in Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer chooses to meet the third option listed (S4.1.2.3), separate requirements are specified for convertibles in S4.1.2.3.2. Convertibles are excluded from Standard No. 216, although a manufacturer may choose to meet the standard in place of certain requirements of Standard No. 208 that are not presently mandatory.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

March 15, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Hurst Hatch Roof and FMVSS No. 216

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you a few questions regarding your interpretation of the word "Convertible", which can be seen in FMVSS No. 216, S3.

In the recent model cars, there have been passenger cars equipped with a new type of roof called "Hurst Hatch Roof", which is shown in the picture in the attachment to this letter (No.1). The structure of the Hurst Hatch Roof Body is completely different from the conventional sun roof, which is also shown in the attachment (No.2). It seems to show a different performance if tested to FMVSS No. 216.

My questions are as follows:

1) Is the Hurst Hatch Roof car defined as a convertible?

2) Is the conventional sun roof car defined as a convertible?

3) If the convertibles are manufactured in the production line, those cars do not have to comply with FMVSS No. 216. However, they have to meet the requirement of S4.1.2.3.2 of FMVSS No.208. Is my understanding correct?

It would be greatly appreciated if your clear interpretation would be given to me by letter as soon as possible.

Naoyoshi Suzuki Staff, Safety

ATTACHMENT

(NO.1)

(NO. 2)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4818

Dear Ms. Zeitlow: This is in response to your letter of December 21 l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. With respect to Standard No. 108, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, l990, stated that 'the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color.' Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. 108 changed, and 'in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling.' Actually, our letter of August 27, l990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. 108 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is 'When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing.' You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August l970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September l970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash, see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February l966, also incorporated by reference. We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. 108. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June l966 and SAE J588d June l966 originally incorporated in Standard No. 108 did not include override language. Standard No. 108 was amended on January 5, l976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, l978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, l976, to September 1, l978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit. You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is l0,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position. In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination. Finally, you asked whether Standard No. l04 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains 'the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe', or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. l04 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 13439.drn

Mr. Donald E. Moore
Compliance Engineer
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
CANADA V1Y 6H8

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a truck's "vernier hand throttle" (VHT) that is not used in driving the vehicle, must meet the "hand operated control" requirements of Standard No. 101 Controls and displays. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you stated that the VHT is used in trucks to power vocational applications, such as dump trucks or cement mixers that power a hydraulic pump, providing energy to a hydraulic motor or ram. The VHT is used only when the vehicle is stationary or moving at a very low speed. You further wrote that the people using the VHT are usually professionals, who perform these tasks daily.

You further wrote that the VHT is placed under the steering column. When in the normal seated position, the driver cannot see the VHT, but can operate it with difficulty. You explained that in its location, the VHT can be operated either from the ground where the operator can easily monitor the auxiliary equipment powered by the VHT, or from the driver's seat. The VHT is placed out of the way of the driver's knees, where it may interfere with driving controls.

Your letter concluded that if NHTSA determines the VHT to be a "hand throttle" as defined in Standard No. 101, your company would have difficulty meeting Standard No. 101 by placing a label in a meaningful location where the driver can both see the label, and have the label be adjacent to the VHT. You further stated your belief that identifying the VHT as a "throttle" may imply that the VHT is meant to regulate road speed while driving, which the VHT does not do.

Standard No. 101's purpose, stated at S2, makes clear the Standard is intended to apply to controls and displays used in the driving task:

The purpose of the standard is to ensure the accessibility and visibility of motor vehicle controls and displays and to facilitate their selection under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.

You have explained how the VHT, although called a "throttle," is not the same as a throttle used to regulate road speed while driving. Since it is not a control used in the driving task, and is not a "hand throttle" specified in S5.1 Location, the VHT need not meet Standard No. 101.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:3/19/97

ID: aiam2599

Dear mr. Wilkins: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter, concerning Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire labeling requirements contained in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.; Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels i governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meet the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel