ID: nht95-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, North American Operations Safety, Affairs and Regulations, GM

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm.

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[each] vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). n1 Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

n1 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b).

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

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

ID: static1

Milford R. Bennett, Director
North American Operations Safety
Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm.

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[e]ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:114 d:7/3/95 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b). S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) refer to vehicles manufactured at different times.

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht71-3.31

DATE: 07/12/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1971, concerning the application of sections 111 and 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1400, 1402), and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), to manufacturers of slide-in campers.

In your letter, you state your conclusion that slide-in campers are items of motor vehicle equipment; that consequently, sections 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 113(d) and 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1402(a), 1402(b), 1402(c), 1402(d), 1402(e)) do not apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers; that Part 573, "Defect Reports," similarly does not apply to them, but that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to them. You request that we confirm those conclusions of advise you in which areas we disagree.

You are correct in concluding that a slide-in camper is an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Act. The Administration's position has not changed since publication of the ruling of March 26, 1968 (33 F.R. 5020), to which you refer, concerning the classification of slide-in campers as items of motor vehicle equipment. We also agree with your conclusion that sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c) of the Act, do not directly apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers. They apply, as you state, only to manufacturers of motor vehicles.

We also agree with your conclusion that section 113(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(d)) and Part 573, Defect Reports, do not apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers or other motor vehicle equipment. We also agree that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to both equipment and vehicle manufacturers.

We do not agree, however, with your position that section 113(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402(e)) applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. To read section 113(e) in this manner would allow one of the basic remedial provisions of the Act to be ineffective in dealing with a vast segment of the industry that the Act is intended to regulate. Our position is that section 113(e) applies both to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and that sections 113(a), 113(b) and 113(c) as referenced in that section also apply to both types of manufacturers. We believe this conclusion to be clearly reflected in the language of these sections. While the language of section 113(a) refers only to manufacturers of motor vehicles, section 113(e) refers with equal emphasis to manufacturers of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

To summarize, while manufacturers of slide-in campers or other motor vehicle equipment are not obligated to conduct voluntary defect notification campaigns pursuant to section 113(a), should the Administrator determine, pursuant to section 113(e), that a slide-in camper or other item of motor vehicle fails to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard, or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, then the Administrator is authorized to order the manufacturer of that item of motor vehicle equipment to conduct a notification campaign, as specified in sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c). Failure or refusal by the manufacturer to do so may result in a violation of section 108(a)(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(4)) and the impositions of the sanctions specified in sections 109 (15 U.S.C. @ 1398) and 110 (15 U.S.C. @ 1399).

I wish to point out that, in practice, manufacturers of slide-in campers or other motor vehicle equipment and manufacturers of motor vehicles may be treated similarly under section 113. When the Administration has reason to believe that either a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is generally requested to discuss the matter informally before a formal determination is made pursuant to section 113(e). Most manufacturers have, at this point, and irrespective of whether they manufacture vehicles or equipment, voluntarily offered in the best interests of safety to notify owners of record of the problem.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: aiam4237

Dear Senator Gorton: Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of you constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther of Clarkston, who asks that safety belts be required on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. As explaine below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protection. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.; I would like to begin with some background information on our schoo bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.; Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus drive since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.; However, because large school buses already offer substantia protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.; A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, 'Safety Belts in School Buses, discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or you constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-3.33

DATE: October 1, 1992 Est.

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Morris Adams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/24/92 from C. Morris Adams to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7768)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.

The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bruce Torrey -- Product Performance Specialist, General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Torrey Product Performance Specialist General Electric Company One Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201

Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning how the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained be low, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.

You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the side and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter, the Lexan glazing material used in these wind ows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material, but may have instead been marked "AS-4/6." (Information provided to the agency by t he NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any "AS" number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard): Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexa n, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked pith the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the man ufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 573 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested of Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination t hat a noncompliance is inconsequential.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 26, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Letter from General Electric Company - August 13, 1986

Gentlemen:

In reference to my letter dated August 13, 1986 concerning the incorrect marking of glazing materials a matter of some urgency has come to my attention. It seems that the New York City Transit Authority is exercising exceptional prudence with regard to t his matter. If this situation continues hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perfectly good material will be excluded from use.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could respond to the following.

Mr. William Wallace New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11207

Mr. R.J. Watters Commercial Plastics & Supply Company Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629. I thank you in advance for you cooperation.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey Product Performance Specialist

August 13, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Incorrect Glazing Marking

Gentlemen:

In order to satisfy the Department of Transportation in New York City I need an official statement concerning the following matter.

Lexan sheet, manufactured by General Electric Company is a plastic (polycarbonate) material typically used for bus side windows and standee glazings. These products are tested per ANSI Z26.1 standards on a regular basis and submitted to AAMVA for verific ation and certification.

During this process our Lexan@ MR-5000 Bronze tinted material was assigned an AS 4/6 designation, as it appears on the Notice of Equipment Compliance from AAMVA. Apparently a misinterpretation of ANSI Z26.1 test NO. 2 which requires minimum light-transmi ssion value of 70%. (1/4" Bronze Lexan@ MR5000 has a value of 53%).

Instead of being appropriately marked, AS-5, they received the AS 4/6 marking.

The following, details pertinent information.

Material Distributor:

Commercial Plastics & Supply Corp. Transportation Division 1620 Woodhaven Drive Cornwells Heights, PA 19020

Bus Manufacturer:

Blitz Bus & Truck 4525 W. 26th Street Chicago, IL 60623

This particular situation involves some 3,000 side windows and another 390 standee windows.

Enclosed you will find supporting test data and a copy of our original Notice of Equipment Compliance.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. I can be reached at (413)448-7629.

Regards,

Bruce M. Torrey

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 1984-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Homer S. Meyers -- President, Easco, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1984, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend that you provide properly-anchored seat belts at each seating position.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

August 2, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pick-up truck accessories.

A potential new product which we are considering is a cross-bed seat for such trucks. A sketch is enclosed. This seat would be formed from plastic sheet of sufficient thickness to provide the necessary strength. It would be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing to the rear. It would be supported by the flange around the top, resting on the lip at the front and sides of the bed, and also by an aluminum leg in the middle of the front edge of the seat.

The seat would be held in place by sheet metal screws going into the lip of the bed. Slots would be cut in the rear of the seat to allow passage of seat belts to fastenings on the floor or front wall of the bed. Alternatively, the belts might be fastened to the seat itself with appropriate back-up strengthening plates.

I would apprediate having your opinion as to the safety standard regulations that would apply to such product.

Homer S. Myers

President

EASCO, Inc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam2885

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.; In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erikson, an Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.; As you point out in your letter, 'dividers' which would appear at th beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic not numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.; In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarificatio concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term 'transfer document.' A 'transfer document' will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.; We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standar contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-4.43

DATE: 09/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Nissan Motor Company's June 2, 1976, question whether a passenger car rear seat cushion assembly which is hinged to rotate forward about its lower front corner is subject to the requirement of S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, for a self-locking restraining device with certain dynamic characteristics. If a restraining device is required, you request to know the test procedures appropriate for it under S4.3.2.1(a).

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 states, with two exceptions, "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding device." The NHTSA does not consider the words "occupant seat or occupant seat back" to refer to the seat cushion alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required. The requirement of S4.2(a) in the case of seating systems with separate backs and cushions is considered a sufficient test of the seat cushion retention characteristics. In the case of the seat cushion assembly you describe, our estimate of the cushion center of gravity in relation to the hinge point indicates that some form of restraint is probably necessary to comply with the requirement for application of a 20g force in the forward direction.

This interpretation supersedes our November 27, 1972, letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute to the degree that its discussion of seat cushion restraint is inconsistent with this interpretation.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD.

June 2, 1976

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

We would like to take this opportunity to ask you for your interpretation regarding the application of S.4.3 in FMVSS 207 "Seating Systems".

1) Is S.4.3 applied to the hinged seat cushion which is shown in the attachment No. 1? In other words, should the hinged seat cushion be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining itself and a control for releasing that restraining device? Should its restraining device meet the requirements of static force and acceleration stated in S.4.3.2.1 (a) and S.4.3.2.2 respectively?

2) If the answer of the above question is yes, in which direction of (X) or (Z) described in the attachment No. 2 should the restraining device be subjected to an acceleration of 20 g when tested in accordance with S.4.3.2.2?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

CC: ROBERT E. NELSON

Condition of using seat

Condition of folding seat

Attachment No. 1 - the hinged seat cushion installed for the rear seating system of station wagon

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)