ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

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

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-1.5

DATE: 01/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pierson, Ball & Dowd

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1979, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting written confirmation of an oral opinion.

Specially you asked whether your client, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. needed to obtain a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 in the situation where it, to use your words, "was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers." The opinion for which you request written confirmation is that Grumman "would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard."

That option is essentially correct assuming that Grumman is the manufacturer of the vehicles in question. Grumman may substitute diesel engines for conventional ones in the manufacturing process without barrier impacting its vehicles if a reasonable basis exists for concluding that its vehicles as modified will meet the standard. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not legally require a manufacturer to test its vehicles. It does, however, require conformance of those vehicles with NHTSA safety performance standards and although testing in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the standards may provide the greatest assurance of conformity, a manufacturer may nevertheless resort to engineering studies mathematical calculations, computer simulations etc. as a basis for certifying that the vehicle does meet all applicable standards.

If Grumman is converting existing vehicles produced and certified by another manufacturer, the responsibility differs though the end result may be substantially similar. The Act imposes no restrictions upon the alteration of a vehicle by its owner, but the agent of an owner (specifically a manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) may not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a person other than Grumman is converting existing vehicles to diesel power, it should not do so unless it is assured that at the end of the conversion process the vehicle continues to meet Standard No. 301-75.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Taylor Vincent, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vincent:

In a telephone conversation I had with you on December 3, 1979, I indicated to you that our client, Grumman Allied Industries, Incorporated (GAII), was seeking clarification on the need to acquire a temporary exemption with respect to FMVSS 301-75 (Fuel System Integrity). If you recall, GAII was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers. It was your opinion that GAII would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard.

Therefore, I would ask you to confirm my understanding of the substance of our conversation so that our client may have some documentation of its intention to maintain its operations in full compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, please call me.

PIERSON, BALL & DOWD

E. Michael Flanagan

ID: nht80-1.50

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in a 1981-model passenger car you plan to market. You state that the seat cushion and seat back of this rear seat are contoured to clearly indicate occupancy by only two persons, and that the seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room.

If the rear seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the seat could qualify as having only two seating positions, since this is substantially below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition of "designated seating position." However, it appears from the photographs and diagrams enclosed in your letter that this rear seat effectively has almost 50 inches of hip room, if measured mid-way between the front and back of the seat cushion (49.2 inches according to the diagram). It is only by the strict measurement technique of SAE J1100a and the contour of the seat back that you obtain the 41.1-inch figure. Further, there appears to be 10 to 12 inches of well-padded seat cushion at the center position of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies. This position could obviously be used by a vehicle occupant. Therefore, we strongly urge you to designate three seating positions in this vehicle design or to install a fixed armrest or some other obstruction so that the center position cannot be used. I am enclosing two recent letters of interpretation on this same subject which are pertinent to your inquiry and which emphasize the agency's positon concerning designs such as you describe in your letter.

Finally, I would like to point out that this response only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

ID: nht78-1.39

DATE: 06/16/78

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 24, 1978, letter asking two questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first question, you ask what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) means by the phrase "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point." This phrase is found in the forward and rearward loading performance tests. You suggest that the NHTSA interpret this to mean a complete separation of a seat component from another component. The NHTSA disagrees with this suggestion.

The standard as written clearly indicates that the agency has intended that seat components remain connected at all attachment points during testing. If the agency had intended a complete separation of seating components to be the test for separation, it would have used that language in the drafting of the regulation. Therefore, the agency declines to adopt the interpretation that you suggest and will require the seat to remain attached at all attachment points during testing.

Your second suggestion concerns a possible problem in the computation of loads during rearward testing. You state that occasionally the loading bar will become buried in the upholstery material and, therefore, distort the actual seat loads. The NHTSA has not noted the phenomenon to which you refer. However, if it were to occur in compliance testing the agency would be certain to factor out any aberrations in the test results that occurred owing to this loading bar problem.

SINCERELY,

April 24, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a clarifying interpretation on two issues relating to FMVSS 222.

1. S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) state that during the forward and rearward performance tests respectively that "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point."

It has been brought to my attention that this phrase is subject to extreme interpretation which we don't believe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended. For example, if 1 out of 100 spotwelds attaching a seatback panel to the frame failed, creating a local separation, would this be considered a non compliance per S 5.1.3 (e) or S 5.1.4 (e)?

We have not used this interpretation. The reasoning for this is that the seat component (back panel) has not separated from the frame.

This is only one example. The same problem occurs in attaching the seat riser to the main frame etc., etc.

Without a clear cut definition of "separate" it is impossible to deal with this phrase. For example, would a torn bracket at a bolt attachment point be a separation? If so, how long must the tear be?

Therefore, we believe the only workable interpretation of S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) is to define "separate" as complete separation of one seat component from another; i.e. separation of the seat foot from the riser from the main frame etc.

We solicit your concurrence with this interpretation.

2. The second item deals with S 5.1.4 Seat performance rearward and S 6.5 loading bar.

S 6.5 requires the loading bar to be 4" narrower than the seat width to insure that panel type members are secured in a manner adequate to transmit loads to main seat frame members. We agree with this philosophy.

However, in our testing and development program we have noted an intermitent problem which is directly related to the "narrow" load bar but does not affect seat performance in any way.

The problem is that occasionally the "narrow" load bar will bury itself in the upholstery, padding, and sheet metal and hang up. When this occurs, the load bar begins pulling the seat back in tension creating high apparent loads rather than sliding along the upholstery and only sensing seat back bending loads. Because these tension loads build rapidly, (and exceed 2200 pounds) this phenomenon could be misinterpreted as a seat back which is too rigid.

This phenomenon is intermitent and not always repeatable. It occurs on different seat designs and appears to be related to parameters difficult to define such as padding thickness, the hardness of the loading bar spherical ends, and the coefficient of friction of the upholstery.

One possible solution, if this should occur during compliance testing, is to use the test results from the "narrow" bar test to prove the integrity of the panel to frame attachment and use a wider bar to get true results of seat back performance.

The purpose of this discussion is to go on record as acknowledging this phenomenon and seek confirmation from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that this would not be judged a non compliance if encountered during compliance testing.

We look forward to your early response on these issues.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht78-1.4

DATE: 12/06/78

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

TO: Saab-Scania of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive, P. O. Box 697 Orange, Connecticut 06477

Dear Mr. Millet:

This is in response to your letter of 25 October 1978 concerning the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201 as it applies to the instrument panel compartment door in the Saab 900. Your specific concern is the portion of S3.3 that provides, "Additionally, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2."

According to your letter, the hinges on the Saab 900 instru- ment panel compartment door are designed to deform to keep the compartment door closed if deformation resulting from the head impact requirements of S3.1 is great enough to open the compartment latch.

If the instrument panel compartment door remains closed during the head impact tests of S3.1, the vehicle complies with that aspect of the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. The standard does not specify that the latch mechanism remain closed, only that the door "shall remain closed."

This interpretation should not be construed as an approval of Saab's instrument panel compartment door hinge system. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are written primarily in terms of performance requirements which must be met in specified tests, and a manufacturer is free to use any design it wishes to meet those performance requirements. Thus, this agency does not grant approval of specific systems or components in the vehicle. The manufacturer must exercise due care to assure that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel October 25, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Subject: Interpretation of Paragraph S3.3 of FMVSS 201

Dear Sir:

Paragraph S3.3 of Federl Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #201 states:

"Interior compartment doors. Each interior compartment door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall remain closed when tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c). Additionaly, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2. All interior compartment door assemblies with a locking device must be tested with the locking device in an unlocked position.

When the Saab 900 instrument panel and compartment door is so tested, the compartment door remains in a closed position.

However, in certain head form impact directions, it may occur that the latch disengages and no longer keeps the door closed.

The only acceptable solution we could find to this problem was to design the hinges of the compartment door so that if the deformation after impact is large enough to open the latch, the hinges will deform in such a way that the door thereby remains closed.

We would appreciate your opinion as to whether or not the door remaining closed by the designed locking action of the hinges is considered to be in compliance with Paragraph S3.3 of the Standard.

Very truly yours,

SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations

RTM:s

ID: nht78-1.40

DATE: 09/05/78

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 19, 1978, letter asking whether the State of California is preempted from requiring that all seats in school buses be forward facing.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies that seats shall be forward facing except seats designed to transport the handicapped. Seats for the handicapped may be side facing to permit ease of access. The California standard requiring forward facing seats regulates the same aspect of performance, seat orientation, as the Federal standard. Since the California standard is not identical to the Federal standard and, in fact, conflicts with the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it is preempted.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

July 19, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: Seats - Side Facing - Handicapped Vehicles

In the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 571.222-S4 was admended to permit side-facing seats in handicapped vehicles.

It has come to our attention that the State of California has a regulation that permits only forward-facing seats.

The question is does the Federal definition that permits the side-facing seats preempt the California regulation?

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht78-1.41

DATE: 02/21/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Roger Tilton; NHTSA

TO: Docket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: EX PARTE CONTACT

On February 21, 1978, by phone at I met with/(spoke with) Mr. Dick Presno of Sheller Globe Corporation. Discussion: He asked whether a 34 inch seat cushion with a 39 inch seat back would be permitted to have a 30 inch restraining barrier. I told him that, in line with earlier interpretations, a 34 inch seat cushion would require a 34 inch restraining barrier.

ID: nht78-1.42

DATE: 01/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Winsconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 16, 1977, letter requesting again that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reinterpret its 20-inch measurement of occupant seat spacing in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Mr. Levin indicated in an earlier response to your letter that seat spacing is measured at the point of greatest distance separating the seats. This measurement is used to ensure that impact forces do not exceed the forces the seat is designed to sustain or absorb. To measure as you suggest would require redesigning school bus seats to ensure their ability to sustain or absorb increased impact loads.

The NHTSA has received a number of complaints on seat spacing in school buses manufactured in compliance with the subject regulations. We have met with most of the major school bus manufacturers discussing production seat spacings and the Federal requirements. The agency has found that manufacturers are producing buses with seat spacings which are, in some cases, 3 inches less than the maximum specified by the regulations. These large reductions in seat spacing result principally from manufacturers' choices in designing the seats. Such seat spacing reductions are not found in all seats designed to meet the regulations.

Through its monitoring of the standard's implementation, the NHTSA has discovered that manufacturers are not achieving the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the time the regulation was issued. The installation of seats in school buses cannot be done with the precision that the NHTSA had anticipated. Accordingly, manufacturers in their attempts to ensure they do not violate the 20-inch space requirement must design seat spacing as much as an inch short of the 20-inch spacing allowance. The result is seat spacing which is less than the agency contemplated. The NHTSA has taken expeditious action to alleviate this problem.

On December 20, 1977, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 by increasing the maximum allowable distance from the seating reference point to the seat back from 20 to 21 inches. The agency intended that the measurement be approximately 20 inches. A seat spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20-inch spacing by taking manufacturing tolerances into account. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing this change in the rule was also issued on December 20, 1977.

SINCERELY,

Wisconsin SCHOOL BUS Association

October 16, 1977 Administrator Joan Claybrook Nat'l Hwy. Traffic safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W.

REFERENCE: NOA-30

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We are in receipt of a letter from NHTSA Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin Jr., in response to our request for an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In his letter of October 7, 1977, Mr. Levin advises us of a similar request for an interpretation on the measurement of school bus seat spacing by Gillig Bros., Hayward, California, (manufacturers of school buses) on September 13, 1976. Gillig Bros. were informed that, according to an interpretation of Standard No. 222 by the NHTSA, the measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back - exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface.

We would suggest that this query by Gillig Bros. to the NHTSA was a very typical request by a manufacturer wishing to receive a clarification on a specification or regulation. We are not aware that manufacturers, users of school buses, or the NHTSA envisioned, at that time in 1976, that a very serious problem in seat spacing would be created by the performance standards of Standard 222 which control seat design . . . . and in that light suggest the possibility that the NHTSA responded to the 1976 Gillig Bros. query with a clarification of the measurement for seat spacing, rather than a formal interpretation on the subject.

In this intervening period since September of 1976, seat designs have been established, conforming to the criteria of Standard No. 222. School buses, built to the federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977, began to appear in the marketplace.

Prospective purchasers throught the Nation were appalled by the restricted knee-room available to the seated passengers. Widespread opposition to this restricted seat spacing has mounted rapidly as more and more school district administrators and school bus contractors view the "new school bus" for the first time and endeavor to seat the upper-grade students in the confined seating.

The immediate effects have been that school boards have recinded local ordances limiting the age of equipment used for pupil transportation; school bus contractors have revised operational policies and, instead of adhering to their normal vehicle replacement programs, intend to obtain longer utilization of school buses in their fleets by upgrading maintenance programs; and school bus passengers are resisting any but the shortest of rides in those seats with their cramped, restricted seating space.

The result is that school boards, school bus contractors, and school bus body manufacturers are recognizing that the new school bus seating will discourage, to a great extent, the transportation of other than children in the lower/middle grades. Passengers will shun these vehicles like the plague for extra-curricular activities and field trips. The opposition to these seats will force school boards to look elsewhere for other types of transportation for these activities. Manufacturers of school bus bodies recognized this possibility long ago, as they viewed the seat spacing mandated by Standard 222, and submitted a petition to the NHTSA for a special sub-classification of school bus - an activity bus with greater seat spacing - that would replace the conventional school bus for these and other activities.

Our school districts - our communities - cannot withstand the tremendous expense of another separate bus fleet this "activity bus" petition would create. Our school districts will not be able to withstand the opposition they will experience against utilization of the "new" school bus with its restrictive seat spacing; but at the same time, their budgets will be incapable of withstanding the alternative . . . . separate bus fleets, taxicabs, payment for pupil transportation by parents.

Our industry realizes that the seats designed to conform to Standard 222 have thicker cushioning; that the same number of seats as was installed in a "pre-April 1, 1977" school bus requires a longer bus body on the new bus. Our industry realizes that allowing a greater seat spacing may require an even longer bus body, or perhaps fewer rows of seats in the bus . . . . but the alternatives are far beyond our school district budget's ability to underwrite.

It is for these reasons that we suggest the questions facing you today are far different than those posed to the NHTSA in September of 1976. It is for these reasons that we respectfully suggest that the NHTSA, recognizing that the question of seat spacing today has far greater implications than in 1976, may wish to allow an immediate relief from the problem through the expediency of a permissive interpretation that would permit school bus manufacturers to measure the knee-room distance at a point where the seat back components are the closest.

May we once again request your considerations for this prmissive interpretation? It is the opinion of the Wisconsin School Bus Association, representative of Wisconsin's pupil transportation industry - and other pupil transportation industry members and representatives throughout the Nation - that this permissive ability would be an important and immediate interim answer to this perplexing and serious problem.

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary

ID: nht78-1.43

DATE: 06/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dugoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking questions about the applicability of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

First you ask whether seat spacing must be maintained at a maximum of 21 inches in these vehicles. The answer to your question is no. As you correctly point out in your letter, section S5.2 of the standard that regulates maximum seat spacing does not apply to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less. Maximum seat spacing is limited in larger buses as a means of compartmentalizing students to prevent injury in crashes. Compartmentalization, and therefore maximum seat spacing, is not necessary in smaller buses since they are required to be equipped with seat belts which afford significant protection in accidents.

Your second question asks whether it is permissible to have one large seat belt in a school bus seat that might wrap around two students or whether each designated seating position must have an individual belt system. The agency concludes that the use of one large belt to cover more than one designated seating position violates section S5 of the regulation. That section states that each seating position must comply with seat belt requirements. To meet this requirement, each seating position in a small bus must be equipped with its own belt system.

If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 10, 1979

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter requests answers to questions concerning federal requirements for seats and seat belts in school buses with a 10,000 pound or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The Illinois standards for construction of school buses include the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) by reference. This establishes a ready means for school districts, transportation contractors, and others to include the FMVSS in bus purchase orders or contracts, thereby making a violation of them a breach of contract. Inclusion also tends to enhance the ability of State safety inspections and enforcement. These latter activities have generated two questions.

1. Does FMVSS 222 prohibit introduction into interstate commerce a new school bus, GVWR 10,000 pounds or less, with seats located so there is more than 21 inches between the rear surface of one or more forward facing passenger seats and the closest seating reference point of the forward facing passenger seat to the rear?

This question arises in connection with buses transporting (mostly) the larger sizes of high school age pupils, "activity buses", and "special education buses" (those carrying handicapped pupils). These school buses are purchased by government agencies (such as school districts) and by private parties (such as churches, contractors, etc.). Because S5.2 of FMVSS 222 does not apply to 10,000 pound or lighter buses, we believe the proper answer is "NO".

2. Does FMVSS 222 allow a manufacturer or alterer to install only one lap belt (Type 1 seat belt) on each passenger seat in a new school bus with 10,000 pounds or less GVWR: i.e., one lap belt, with two anchors, to go around 2, or 3, or more passengers properly in a seat?

We believe the proper answer is "NO" -- especially so since publication of your notification (43 FR 21893) and discussion (44 FR 23229 et seq) concerning designated seating positions, with your emphasis on the need for a restraint at each position where a passenger is likely to sit. We do not believe that 1 relatively long lap belt with its 2 anchors spaced sufficiently far apart to accommodate 2 or more properly seated passengers will safely restrain one passenger sitting somewhere in a 2-passenger or wider seat -- especially when that passenger is a relatively small pupil. Also, we do not believe that seat belt anchors spaced closely enough for properly restraining one passenger will allow a long lap belt to restrain 2 or more passengers properly, or without generating excessive belt-induced crash injury. As we read FMVSS 222, its only change of the "restraint standards" included by reference (FMVSS 208, 209, & 210) is the use of a 10 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 222) in place of a 16 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 210).

If your answer to either questions is "YES", we probably will need other answers. Therefore, we will appreciate an early response to each question in order that our instructions to field personnel and inspection stations may be firmed up in the near future.

If, in the preparation of your response, you feel that more details are needed or that you have questions which need answering, please feel free to contact the following members of my staff: Mr. Larry F. Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Operations, 217/782-4974; or Mr. Madison Post, Standards Engineer, 217/782-2920.

Karsten J. Vieg, Director Division of Traffic Safety

ID: nht78-1.44

DATE: 09/21/78

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

TO: West Seneca Central School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 4, 1978, letter asking whether you can modify several buses that you have purchased by adding stanchion bars near the front door to facilitate the loading of smaller school children.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not prohibit the use of stanchion bars in school buses. Some manufacturers, however, have discontinued putting them in buses because it is difficult to pad them sufficiently such that they comply with the head impact zone requirements when the bars fall within the head impact zone.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) prohibits modification of vehicles by repair businesses, dealers, or manufacturers that would render inoperative compliance with safety standards (section 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a dealer, repair business, or manufacturer were to install stanchion bars in your school buses, it would be required to ensure that the installation does not render inoperative compliance with the head impact zone requirements. The Act does not prohibit, however, modifications by individuals of their vehicles even when such modification would not comply with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, a school district could itself install stanchion bars that do not comply with the head impact zone requirements.

SINCERELY,

May 4, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Code of Federal Regulation, Part 571.222 School Bus Passenger Seating & Crash Protection

Gentlemen,

Recently we purchased 20 65-passenger buses. These buses, according to your regulations, had crash pads near the entrance way but the stanchion bars for help in boarding and leaving the buses were removed. Our Board of Education is not objecting to the crash pads but there is a strong feeling that some protection has been removed in the process of getting on and off the buses, particularly for small children.

We checked this matter out with the New York State Department of Transportation and this agency suggested that we write to you to see if we could get your approval. The question is this; may we install one or two stanchion bars at the entrance steps on the recently purchased 20 buses. If this meets your approval please write us a letter accordingly. It certainly would not be our intent to remove the pad.

Thank you for your early attention to this matter.

J. W. Yarbrough Assistant Superintendent for Business