ID: nht76-5.3

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Masoaka-Ishikawa and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 24, 1976, request for affirmation that a particular Takata Kojyo test procedure for applying force to a continuous loop Type 2 belt system "meet[s] the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies."

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 209 sets forth the requirements of the standard for assembly performance. Section S5.3(b) sets forth test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4. Takata Kojyo's obligation as a manufacturer is to ensure that its certification of compliance is not false or misleading in a material respect, and that it has exercised due care in manufacturing to conform to Standard No. 209 (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(2)). A manufacturer is not required to follow specifically the test procedures of the standards, but to ascertain, in the exercise of due care, that its product will conform to the standard's requirements when it is tested by the stated methods.

From your description, you have modified the existing procedures by use of a clamp to ensure that all force is applied to the lower torso webbing and hardware or, alternatively, to the upper torso webbing and hardware. While it appears that the comtemplated test procedure may evidence the exercise of due care to certify compliance with S4.4, the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to utilize sound engineering judgement in the exercise of due care.

MASOKA-ISHIKAWA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

February 24, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies whose products are used in automobiles marketed in the United States, we seek affirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the testing procedures for "continuous-loop" seat belt assemblies as shown in the attached illustrations meet the requirements set forth in Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The proposed Takata Kojyo test procedures as shown in Figures 3 and 4 are specifically designed for Takata Kojyo's newly developed energy-absorbing/conventional webbing, continuous-loop seat belt assembly.

Figure 1 shows Takata Kojyo's continuous-loop seat belt assembly. Figure 2 illustrates the manner in which Takata Kojyo's combination energy-absorbing/conventional seat belt webbing is manufactured in an unique continuous weaving process. The continuously type webbing for the lap portion and the energy-absorbing webbing for the upper torso portion in an especially advanced continuous-loop seat belt assembly which provides markedly improved occupant protection.

Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, is a privately held Japanese corporation engaged in the manufacture of seat belt assemblies. Takata Kojyo does not directly market its automotive safety products in the United States. Its products are sold to manufacturers whose automobiles are sold in the United States. Japanese automobiles which use Takata Kojyo seat belt assemblies include, but are not limited to, Toyota, Datsun, Mazda, Dodge Colt and Honda. Takata Kojyo is the largest supplier of seat belt webbing in Japan, accounting for the more than 80 per cent of the market.

We respectfully request your prompt reply to our inquiry as to whether the test procedures shown in the attached illustrations fulfill the requirements of Standard 209.

T. Albert Yamada

CC: S. ISHIKAWA

Fig. 3 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Bedt System (Continuous Loop)

Fig. 4 Proposed test method. Takata Kojyo Type II Seat Belt (Continuous Loop)

(Graphics omitted)

Fig. 1 Takata Kojyo Continous Loop Seat Belt Assembly

Fig. 2 Takata Kojyo Energy-absorbing webbing. Manufactured in a continuous weaving process.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.30

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Cameo Industries

COPYEE: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reporting forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @@ 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required.

In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed.

SINCERELY,

To: Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

From: Cameo Industries

Subject: Motor home reports

MESSAGE:

We are contemplating building mini motor homes and are therefore interested in the reporting forms to be made on these vehicles. We would like to know what kind of monthly, quarterly etc. forms need to be filled out. Could your office send us a list of these forms? Thank you very much for your help on this matter.

Date 3/17/76

Signed Sam F Lancaster President

ID: nht76-5.31

DATE: 11/01/76

FROM: CHARLES E. DUKE FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 20, 1976, letter concerning record keeping with respect to new passenger cars that are damaged prior to retail sale.

I would like to clarify the discussion of record requirements in my September 14, 1976, letter to you. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require vehicle manufacturers to create records of safety-related repairs that are made to new motor vehicles prior to sale, we do require the retention of all such records that are in fact created by the manufacturer. Through such records, the NHTSA can in many cases trace the history of vehicles suspected of containing safety-related defects. We have not to date found a safety need sufficient to justify further requirements specifically regarding identification of the vehicles in question.

A copy of the record retention regulation, 49 CFR Part 576, is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-5.32

DATE: 12/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TREAD LABEL FORMAT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING STANDARDS

On December 16, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Calvin Schaffner of B.F. Goodrich Co. (216 379-3470) concerning Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR @ 575.104. That figure depicts the format of the tread label required by the rule.

Mr. Schaffner referred to Figure 2 as it appears in Notice 21 (41 FR 54205; December 13, 1976). I explained that, because Notice 21 is a notice of proposed rulemaking rather than final rulemaking, the inclusion of the warnings in the traction and temperature grades is not yet certain. I further explained, however, that (i) in all other respects, the depiction of Figure 2 in that notice was correct; (ii) the appearance of Figure 2 was incorrect in both Notices 17 and 18, due to printing errors at the Federal Register, and (iii) this point would be clarified in a final rulemaking notice.

ID: nht76-5.33

DATE: 06/22/76

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER FOR JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

COPYEE: STEVE JONAS -- AMC; ARCH DOTY -- MVMA; GEORGE NIELD -- AIA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of June 17, 1976, for confirmation that @ 575.101 of Part 575, Consumer Information, was recently revised to specify vehicle stopping distance information based on stops that may include wheel lockup under the conditions allowed by Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You note that the text of @ 575.101(c)(5), and the accompanying illustration in Figure 1 of the section, describe the information provided as performance achieved "without locking the wheels."

Your interpretation of the requirements of @ 575.101 is correct. In amending Part 575 to permit the use of stopping distance data collected in tests for Standard No. 105-75, the agency made all changes it believed necessary to provide for the use of stopping distance information gathered in connection with Standard No. 105-75 (41 FR 1066, January 6, 1976). The reference to "without locking the wheels" should have been deleted from the text of @ 575.101(c)(5) and Figure 1. A correcting amendment will be issued shortly.

The correction of an omission from the text of the first paragraph of @ 575.101(c) will also be made at that time. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the concluding option (as published in the Federal Register) should read "under the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section."

ID: nht76-5.34

DATE: 09/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan J. Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING: TELEPHONE CALL FROM CHARLES McCARTY OF B.F. GOODRICH ON 9/22/76

On September 22, 1976, I received a telephone call from Charles McCarty of B.F. Goodrich. He asked about data which he said was referred to in the court's recent decision. When I asked specifically where in the court's decision, he referred to page 21, paragraph 2, which concerns the remand on course monitoring tires. I told Mr. McCarty that nothing has been published in that regard in the Federal Register since the court's decision, and that I would prefer not to offer any predictions because the matter was still in litigation.

I told him that, as he may know, the tire companies had filed a petition for rehearing on Septermber 16, and thus they had chosen to keep the matter in litigation. Therefore, I said, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the matter with him directly rather than with the attorneys for his company in the litigation. He said that he understood.

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