ID: 10695

Mr. Randal Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictures accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not be a problem.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:3/22/95

ID: 15455.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

On March 19, 1997, we replied to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie." We informed you that three of four features of the invention were acceptable under the laws and regulations that we administer. These features were the "40-Second Delay Turnoff", the "4-Minute Delay Turnoff," and the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff."

The fourth feature was "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. We informed you that we interpret S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. Because your system switches between modes, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

We also informed you that there was another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we did not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate, and wrote that, as a legal matter, you were requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, we informed you that the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State.

Finally, we called your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

You FAXed us on April 28, 1997, asking for a further interpretation, and before we had a chance to answer, wrote additional letters dated June 6, 1997, and June 23, 1997. This letter responds only to your letter of June 23, 1997, which we understand to be the latest description of your invention.

The LightGenie system is still unacceptable under Standard No. 108. We note that you now describe the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff" as causing "the parking lamps, tail lamps, license plate lamps, side marker lamps and the headlamps if desired . . . to blink . . . ." This is a noncompliance with S5.5.10(d). Paragraph S5.5.10(b) permits only the headlamps and side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Paragraph S5.5.10(d)requires other lamps (e.g.,parking lamps, taillamps, and license plate lamps) to be wired to be steady burning.

We also call your attention to S5.5.7(b). You write ("(b)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system "may turn off the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps as specified by S5.5.3." This is an incorrect reading of S5.5.3 and overlooks the requirements of S5.5.7(b). Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires activation of the taillamps parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps whenever the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. The only relief afforded by S5.5.3 is to allow a vehicle manufacturer the option of not activating the taillamps when the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity as permitted by the specifications of S5.5.11(a) for DRLs.

As we advised previously, aftermarket modifications, such as adding the LightGenie system, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, are forbidden if they create a noncompliance in a vehicle certified as complying when it was manufactured.

You also write ("(c)") in detail about the operation of the LightGenie control. This is so complicated that it requires 48 lines of text for you to describe it. We understand you to say that the LightGenie/DRL headlamp control system is meant to substitute for the headlamp control that would otherwise be provided. The LightGenie headlamp control contains three automatic "on" positions, and four manual "on" positions. We contrast this with the usual headlamp control which contains two manual "on" positions, though some cars add one optional automatic "on" position. This multi-choice headlamp control seems unnecessarily confusing and without an evident safety rationale. However, there are no Federal specifications for operation of headlamp controls, nor can we say that this multi-function control creates an impairment withing the meaning of S5.1.3 as long as there is no confusion about how it activates the headlamps in the headlamp mode.

We understand from "(a)" that the system operates on either the upper beam or the lower beam. This appears to meet our previous objection to a system that operates between beam modes.

Finally, you conclude ("(d)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system, will not "impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, as specified by S5.1.3". The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer at the time it certifies compliance with all applicable standards including Standard No. 108, and by any alterer at the time of its certification. Unlike your previous letter mentioning the aftermarket, your letter of June 23 speaks of the LightGenie only as "OEM". We regard as original equipment any motor vehicle equipment that is present on a vehicle at the time of its first sale for purposes other than resale. This includes equipment added by a dealer after the vehicle has been certified by its manufacturer. Any person who alters a certified vehicle before its first sale, by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, must affix a label stating that the vehicle has been altered and certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that a person installing the LightGenie before a vehicle's first sale would be an "alterer" and required to recertify the vehicle.

To sum up, the LightGenie system as described in your letter of June 23, 1997, will be acceptable under Standard No. 108 if it is redesigned so that it does not create noncompliances with S5.5.10(d) and S5.5.7(b), providing those corrections do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, e.g., reducing the intensity of other lamps on the vehicle that are on the same circuit as the reduced intensity headlamps used as DRLs. With this statement, we do not believe that there is a need for a further interpretation regarding the Light/Genie.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.9/29/97
ref:108

ID: 7605

Mr. Kevin R. Boyne
Chief Engineer
Dynamics and Durability Engineering
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Boyne:

This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements:

Initial Condition -Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action -The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern -As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states:

Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply.

The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems.

While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1).

Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non- transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:114 d:10/21/92

ID: nht92-3.12

DATE: October 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/92 from Kevin R. Boyne to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7605)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements:

Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states:

Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a

situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply.

The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems.

While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift, lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1).

Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993.

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: aiam0210

Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belt in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.; The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires tha seat belt assemblies be installed in each *forward-facing* designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats, however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969 which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analyzed and the final rule is now being developed.; I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of th Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Vehicle Structures Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht76-3.9

DATE: 05/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request for confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional "D ring" buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the "D ring" frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt."

Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basis for your question whether the GM "D ring" has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable." Thus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32; Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a "window shade" device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.

Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question on a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.

ID: nht75-4.29

DATE: 03/27/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to General Motors' January 14, 1975, request for confirmation that a Type II seat belt assembly demonstrated to Messrs. Carter, Detrick, Hofferberth, Burgett, Hitchcock, and Herlihy of the NHTSA on December 17, 1974, satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way frictional "D ring" buckle tongue which limits return of webbing to the lap belt portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use. At the December 17 demonstration you specifically asked if the "D ring" frictional characteristics satisfy the criterion established in a September 25, 1972, letter to Renault, Inc. (copy enclosed), that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt."

Section S7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction was set out in the Renault letter and it is the basis for your question whether the GM "D ring" has a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as "automatically adjustable." Thus it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your December 17 demonstration we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors (copy enclosed). It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32; Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." General Motors' response to that proposal and its anticipated use of a "window shade" device in future continuous loop systems assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.

Pursuant to your request for confidential treatment of this question on a new seat belt assembly, this letter will be made public only after the introduction of the new vehicle in question.

ID: aiam4965

FAX: 613-998-1965 Dear Mr. White: This responds to your FAX of Februar 18, 1992, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a. That question is: 'Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral '0''? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 'to have a zero mark' did 'not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark.' Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that 'An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure '0' as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD 'at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal.' This means at the 'O' mark. Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide 'an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis.' These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the 'O' mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 77-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/77

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1977, letter in which you ask several questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and the definition of school bus.

You first ask whether the seat spacing requirements found in S5.2.1 of the standard are applicable to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. Buses in this weight classification do not have to comply with the mandatory seat spacing requirements. Since these buses are equipped with seat belts, the mandatory seat spacing is not necessary to provide adequate occupant crash protection.

Your second question concerns those areas required to meet the head protection zone requirements. You ask whether the window frame, window supporting structure, and window glass are included within the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA issued an amendment of the standard (Notice 6, 41 FR 28506) in an attempt to clarify those portions of the bus subject to the head protection zone requirements. In this notice (copy enclosed), we stated that the sidewall, window and door structures were never intended to be included within the zone and are not subject to the requirements for head protection. However, the roof structure, if it falls within the zone, is subject to the requirements. If you need further information to determine the portions of your bus that would be included within the head protection zone requirements, I suggest that you send the agency sketches of your bus interior depicting those areas of concern.

Concerning seat orientation, you question whether the requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 of the standard applies to buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of the standard lists the paragraphs of the standard applicable to buses in the above-mentioned weight classification. S5(b) does not refer to S5.1 which contains the requirement for forward facing seats. This omission was an oversight that occurred during the drafting of the regulation. The agency intended that seats in all school buses be forward facing, unless designed for handicapped or convalescent passengers as permitted in Notice 6. This intent is obvious since, as you note, we require these seats to comply with forward and rearward performance requirements. The NHTSA will soon issue an amendment of the standard to correct this omission.

Your final question concerns the definition of school bus which excludes common carriers in urban transportation. Your interpretation of this exclusion is correct. These buses are permitted to transport children to and from school but need not comply with the school bus construction standards.

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC.

APRIL 28, 1977

ROGER TILTON NHTSA

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE ME TODAY BY TELEPHONE. FROM OUR CONVERSATION AND FMVSS 571.222, I UNDERSTAND THAT SEAT SPACING SPECIFICATIONS OF SECTION 5.2, OF THE 222 STANDARDS, DO NOT APPLY TO SCHOOL BUSES AT 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS GVWR. IS THIS INTERPRETATION THE SAME AS THAT OF NHTSA? IS IT NHTSA'S RATIONALE THAT SEAT SPACING CRITERIA OF SECTION 5.2 IS NOT NECESSARY FOR BUSES UNDER 10,000 POUNDS BECAUSE THESE BUSES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SEAT BELTS TO RESTRAIN PASSENGERS?

SECTION 5.3.1 OF STANDARD 222 STATES THAT ANY CONTACTABLE SURFACE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED HEAD PROTECTION ZONE (S5.3.1.3) SHALL MEET THE HEAD FORM IMPACT (S5.3.1.2) AND HEAD FORM FORCE DISTRIBUTION (S5.3.1.3) REQUIREMENTS. DOES THIS INCLUDE WINDOW FRAMES? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW SUPPORTING STRUCTURE? DOES IT INCLUDE WINDOW GLASS?

FMVSS 222, SECTION 5.1.4, REQUIRES ALL SEATS WITH SEATS BEHIND THEM TO MEET THE FORWARD (SECTION 5.1.3) AND REARWARD (SECTION 5.1.4) SEAT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS OF STANDARD NUMBER 222?

THE REQUIREMENT FOR FORWARD FACING SEATS, SECTION 5.1 OF STANDARD 222, IS NOT INCLUDED FOR 10,000 POUNDS AND LESS GVWR SCHOOL BUSES. HOWEVER, IN THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS PASSENGER SEAT, THERE SEEMS TO BE EVIDENCE THAT THE SCHOOL BUS SEATS MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE FORWARD FACING, BUT MAY BE CANTED AS MUCH AS 45 DEGREES ARE MANUFACTURERS OF SCHOOL BUSES WHICH ARE LESS THAN 10,000 GVW CORRECT IF THEY POSITION THEIR SEATS AT ANY POSITION UP TO 45 DEGREES BETWEEN THE BUS LONGITUDINAL CENTERLINE AND A LINE PASSING ALONG THE FORWARD, UPPER EDGE OF THE SEAT CUSHIONS?

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEFINITION OF A SCHOOL BUS IS A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH MOTIVE POWER, EXCEPT A TRAILER, DESIGNED FOR CARRYING 10 PERSONS OR MORE PLUS THE DRIVER, SOLD OR INTRODUCED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR PURPOSES THAT INCLUDE CARRYING STUDENTS TO AND FROM SCHOOL OR RELATED EVENTS. COMMON CARRIERS IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION ARE EXCLUDED. IS THIS CONCEPT CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA'S INTERPRETATION?

PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR REPLY TO MR. BYRON CRAMPTON, TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., CHEVY CHASE BUILDING, SUITE 1220, 5530 WISCONSIN AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015.

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

cc: BRYON CRAMPTON -- TBEA

ID: 77-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, question whether the use of a front-row two-passenger bench seat with a three-passenger seat back requires a forward restraining barrier for two or three designated seating positions according to the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

The NHTSA answered this question on February 22, 1977, in response to a request for an interpretation from Blue Bird Body Company. I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. You will note that Blue Bird accomplished the modification of the front-row seat by the installation of a two-passenger bench seat. As the interpretation indicates, the NHTSA requires a restraining barrier only in front of designated seating positions.

You also ask what procedure is required to obtain approval from the NHTSA for a particular front-row seat design. Although the agency does not give formal "approval" of designs, it is willing to give an opinion as to whether your design appears to satisfy the requirements of the standard. We require that you submit full detail (including pictures if possible) of any proposed design. In particular, we would like to know how you intend to render the excess 13 inches of frame permanently inoperative as a seating position. We would also be interested to know why you cannot install a two-passenger bench seat to obviate the problem of excess seat frame.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

February 8, 1977

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

REF: FMVSS 222

Sheller-Globe Corporation is requesting an interpretation of S.5.2.2 barrier position and rear surface area of FMVSS 222 - School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Some states have for many years required a 24 inch clearance between the driver's stanchion and stepwell stanchion and are concerned about the 12 inch aisle between the barriers closing this area at the stepwell and entrance door.

Our question relates to the possibility of supplying front right-hand and/or left-hand seat with a 39 inch seat back and using a two passenger or 26 inch wide seat, cushion with a barrier width also of 26 inch width.

The 39 inch seat is used as an example with the understanding the same question also refers to other size seats such as 45, 36, 34, etc.

If this type seat and barrier will comply with your requirement and a method is devised to make the remaining 13 inches of the seat frame as to render it unusable as a seating area, what procedure is required to obtain approval from NHTSA that the particular design is determined to be a none seating position.

Your prompt attention is requested due to April 1, 1977, effective date and many questions from states reviewing their standards.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities