Interpretation ID: nht79-2.7

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.

On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (December 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.

In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 should incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.

The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providing the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirements of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice-submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standard, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

August 15, 1978

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PETITION

References: 1. W. G. Milby Petition of December 20, 1977. 2. J. J. Levin to W. G. Milby, NOA-30 July 19, 1978. 3. R & D 222 - MS - 78-01 - Impact Media Evaluation.

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to reference 2 and to again petition the agency on the same subject as reference 1. The basis for this second petition is reference 3, which was not available when the first petition was submitted and apparently was not consulted by the agency before denying reference 1.

To quote a ranking NHTSA official, "regulation without enforcement is meaningless." We agree. But to have enforcement, there must be a repeatable procedure which all interested parties use. Otherwise test results are not comparable. When methodology causes significant variance in the test results, then, methodology must be addressed before rational enforcement can exist.

Today, as documented in reference 3, the allowable variations in test methodology regarding FMVSS 222 contact area cause significant variance in the test results and prevent rational enforcement. This is the reason we submitted reference 1, a petition requesting rulemaking action on FMVSS 222 which would require and allow only one transfer medium for measuring contact areas.

Reference 2 denies that petition. However, we believe the reasons which the agency set forth as a basis for the denial are not valid. Further, the agency did not address the content of the proposed amendment in reference 1. Each of the reasons the agency gave for denying reference 1 is discussed below with comments showing why they are not valid.

1. The first reason NHTSA gave for denial was that the agency does not specify the "details for manufacturer testing . . .", but instead, leaves it up to each manufacturer to determine how to test. We do not believe this is true in all cases. For example, FMVSS 121 goes into significant detail for air brake testing. FMVSS 209 goes into even more detail on seat belt assemblies, with the demonstration procedures alone requiring 11 pages. Therefore we conclude that the NHTSA does specify details in a standard when it is consisted with good rulemaking.

2. The second reason for denial was that the agency does adopt certain test procedures for use in its own compliance testing and that manufacturers are free to use these test procedures. It is true that NHTSA has published test procedures for FMVSS 222. However, these procedures are inadequate with respect to contact area measurement methodology as was spelled out in detail in reference 1. The basis of our petition, reference 1, was that the test procedures for FMVSS 222, as well as the standard itself, contains inadequate detail to insure consistent contact area measurements. Therefore, simply stating that NHTSA has published test procedures is not a valid reason for denying the petition.

3. NHTSA's third reason for denying the petition was that NHTSA makes the test procedures public and manufacturers are welcome to use them for their own testing. While it is true that the test procedures are eventually made public, reference 1 points out the fact that test procedures are sometimes not made public in time for manufacturers to use them for certification testing. In fact, we were not able to get the FMVSS 222 test procedures until December 9, 1977, and that was only in response to our request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

4. The fourth reason given for denial of the petition was that "the transfer medium specified in the NHTSA compliance test are for the purpose of convenience of NHTSA testing." We do not believe that the convenience of NHTSA testing should be given higher priority than the need for specifying procedures which will give repeatable results. In fact, as the standard and test procedures now allow more than one transfer medium, it results in inconvenience to all parties involved, including NHTSA, rather than convenience. This is so because allowing different transfer media causes different results which then generate false indications of non compliance. This is very costly as well as inconvenient to all parties involved.

None of these reasons, in our opinion, is a valid basis upon which to deny our petition reference 1. Since this issue must be resolved before enforcement of this part of the standard can occur, we hereby again petition NHTSA to amend FMVSS 222 as follows:

1. Change paragraph 6.8 to read "Except for during contact area measurement impacts, the head form and knee form, and contactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact testing."

2. Add a new paragraph 6.8.1 to read "Prior to each contact area impact, use a bristle brush to apply a cost of latex base exterior house paint to the entire sperical surface of the head or knee form. Wipe the head or knee form clean after each contact area impact."

3. Add a paragraph 6.8.2 to read "Immediately after each contact area impact, record the contact area pattern by holding a piece of vellum drafting paper stationary over the pattern and firmly rubbing it."

4. Add a new paragraph 6.8.3 to read "After allowing contact area patterns to dry on the vellum paper, draw non intersecting lines tangent to the outer bounds of areas of direct contact. the contact area is that area enclosed by the periphery of these lines and the area of direct contact. Measure this area by tracing the periphery with a direct reading planimeter."

We look forward to receiving an affirmative response to this petition within 120 days.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services