ID: 11545REGGER

Mr. Jim Lee
Quality Manager
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to Gerry=s letters of October 3 and December 18, 1995, and telephone conversations involving you, Gerry counsel Eric Witte and Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning two additions you wish to make to labeling information required by Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the statements are permitted.

Gerry=s question relates to S5.5.1(m) and S5.6 of Standard No. 213. S5.5.1(a) requires child restraints to be labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:

Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name, address and the restraint=s model number and manufacturing date to (insert address) or call (insert telephone number). For recall information, call the U.S. Government=s Auto Safety Hotline at 1- 800-424-9393 . . . .

S5.6 of Standard 213 requires this statement to be included in the printed instructions for each child restraint. (S5.6.1.7)

First suggested change Gerry first asks whether it may add the following statement (or a similar one) to the above, instructing consumers not to place return address stickers on their cards: APlease print or type your address. Do not use address labels which can become damaged or illegible and could prevent you from being contacted in the event of a recall.@ Gerry believes this is needed because Gerry receives about 250 registration cards a year with missing or illegible address labels which were lost or damaged in the mail. Gerry cannot register these consumers without their names and addresses.

Our answer is that the additional statement is permitted. NHTSA has a longstanding position that manufacturers may present information in addition to the required information, if the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information. See, e.g., May 24, 1993 letter to Steve Flint (permitting French and Spanish translations of registration form); April 17, 1989 letter to Robert Craig (labeling child seats with metric units). Copies of these letters are enclosed.

S5.5.2(m) is intended to maximize child seat owner registrations, so that as many child seats as possible are remedied in a recall campaign. The information you want to add to S5.5.2(m) accords with that purpose. Assuming that the information is presented in a manner that is unlikely to confuse prospective registrants or otherwise discourage them from registering their seats, you may add the statement.

Second suggested change You ask if Gerry may also add the following, after Gerry=s A800" telephone number: AThis is for recall registration only. For consumer concerns please call 1- 800-626-2996.@ Gerry believes this addition Aeliminates any confusion the consumer may have concerning the appropriate number to call if problems arise.@ In a March 12, 1996 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you also explained that the suggested change could reduce costs for Gerry. Currently, registration information is collected for Gerry by a separate company, which charges Gerry extra for re-directing calls that relate to matters other than registration.

The additional statement is permitted, for the same reasons we discussed above. The statement appears to help you better serve your customers and reduce unnecessary costs. The statement does not appear likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information.

Petition for Rulemaking In the December letter, which Gerry originally sent to Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, Gerry describes its request as a Apetition to change [Standard] 213....@ As discussed with you on March 12, since we have concluded that the labeling changes you seek are already permitted, we understand Gerry to have withdrawn its petition.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:3/29/96

ID: aiam2363

Dear Mr. Mathieson: this responds to Thomas Built Buses' June 4, 1976, question whether th requirements in S5.1.3 and S5.1.4 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*, to 'Apply additional force...through the...loading bar until (a specified number) of inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed in deflecting the seat back...' can be satisfied in part by the energy that is returned to the load bar as it is withdrawn from the seat back. You also ask if there are minimum or maximum time limits on withdrawal of the loading bar from the seat surface.; The requirement for the absorption of a minimum amount of energy i deflecting the seat back in the forward and rearward directions is calculated to provide adequate measurement of the energy involved in the impact between the bus occupants and the seating in a percentage of school bus crashes. The agency calculated the amount of energy to be consumed by the seat back that would result in adequate protection. The specification requires the seat to 'absorb' (i.e., receive without recoil) a specific amount of energy. This value is represented by the amount of energy that is not returned to the loading bar as it is withdrawn. Described graphically, the area that represents returned energy under the seat back force/deflection curve must be subtracted from the entire area that lies under the curve in order to calculate the energy 'absorbed' by the seat back.; With regard to your second question, no time limits have bee established for withdrawal of the loading bar. The agency intends to utilize a withdrawal time that is not more than five minutes so that creep will not be a significant factor in determining energy absorption. Because the time is not specified, the manufacturer is free to use any reasonable time that does not significantly affect the elastic and plastic components of the seat back loading.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 15639.drn

Scott Summers, Esq.
Agency Legal Counsel's Office
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NE 68509-4987

Dear Mr. Summers:

This responds to your letter asking about the difference in definitions of "schoolbus" at 49 U.S.C. 30125 and at 49 CFR 571.3. This question arose from comments on Nebraska's proposed change in the State definition of "school bus." You attached a letter from Mr. James R. Cunningham, Executive Director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, questioning the "inconsistency between the August 1995 document ['Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements'] and the Federal Statute."

The statutory definition of "schoolbus" at 30125 is "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school."

In NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, a "school bus" is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation" (emphasis added). Section 571.3 defines "bus" as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons." The 571.3 definition of "bus" includes the driver, who is a "person" carried on the bus.

In the August 1995 "Frequently Asked Questions" document, NHTSA restates the regulatory definition of "school bus" found at 49 CFR 571.3.

NHTSA enacted its regulatory definition of "school bus" following enactment of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. In the final rule establishing the new definition of "school bus" (49 CFR 571.3), NHTSA addressed the point raised by Mr. Cunningham. In that final rule, NHTSA explained that it adopted a more expansive definition of "school bus" that differs somewhat from the statutory definition, so that the definition would apply to school buses that transport 10 students. In a Federal Register notice of December 31, 1975 (40 FR 60033, at 60034) (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated:

In conforming its proposal to the Congressional definition, the NHTSA limited "school bus" to a bus that carries at least 11 passengers in addition to the driver. Based on comments received ... , it appears that the definition should be expanded slightly to include buses that carry 10 passengers. This eliminates a departure from previous NHTSA vehicle categorization that classifies vehicles with 10 or fewer occupant seating positions as MPVs or passenger cars and vehicles with 11 or more seating positions as buses. To adhere strictly to the Congressional definition would leave the small group of vehicles that transport 10 students without coverage under either the school bus, the MPV, or the passenger car standards.

Some commenters incorrectly assumed that the Congressional definition of "school bus" established an outer limit on the NHTSA's authority to regulate vehicles that transport students as such. To the contrary, the Congressional definition is a direction to the NHTSA that the new standards in this area must not be applied to a narrower category of vehicle. As long as that direction of Congress is satisfied, the NHTSA is, however, authorized to decide the scope of its standards, and in this case to expand on the Congressional definition to implement the mandate effectively.

Please note that Nebraska may adopt a state definition of "school bus" that differs from the Federal definition. State definitions of "school bus" affect the scope of State school bus requirements, while the Federal definition affects the scope of Federal requirements. For example, the State definitions determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses. However, the Federal definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

This agency has urged the States to follow NHTSA's definition of "school bus" and not to establish operational rules that would allow schools and school districts to carry students on buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards. School buses that comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards are the safest form of pupil transportation.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref: 571.3
d.10/14/97

ID: aiam3448

Dear Mr. Maugh: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of m staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.; Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements fo the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a 'console support structure' which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.; Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. Th phrase 'bears upon the seat frame' as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.; We note that the console support frame could easily have been attache to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.; The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was t enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.; Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4590

"Dear Mr. Mayer: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. l0l, Controls and Displays, and No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standards in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August l5, l988 letter signed by your attorney, effective September 30, l988. You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmission is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 l. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02 and asked whether we agree with your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, and as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. l0l and l02. The performance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions. I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. l0l and No. l02 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as having two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manually control most conventional automatic transmissions, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an additional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission. I will now address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and asked for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of this point. You also asked about the permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays. I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02. Section S3.2 of Standard No. l02 states that the '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' NHTSA has previously interpreted 'position' to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, l988, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.) Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.l requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.l and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. l02. Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 l + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. l02, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. l0l specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (l) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. l0l and No. l02, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display is permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, which specifies requirements for sources of illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, l988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. l02. We plan to address that specific issue in the context of that rulemaking. While it is not entirely clear from your letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including times when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the l0 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. l0l to Standard No. l02, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. l02 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. l0l must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. l02. If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. l0l, as noted above). I note that neither of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 l, they show either 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l instead of + M -. If the instrument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. l0l, it would be necessary for the display to show the l0 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that the instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display. I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 l or 4 3 M 2 l. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode, the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear position on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. l0l and No. l02 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the voluntarily provided instrument panel display. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3409

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your April 14, 1981, letter asking whether a fold-u seat that you plan to build in a school bus would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You state in your letter that the seat would comply with all of th requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. If the seat complies with that standard and if its location in the bus will not interfere with the requirements applicable to emergency exits, then the seat should comply with all of the Federal safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2821

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your April 24, 1978, letter asking two question concerning Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; In your first question, you ask what the National Highway Traffi 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 intende 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 computatio 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, Joseph J. levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10334

Ms. Debra Platt
2289 Southeast Madison Street
Stuart, FL 34997

Dear Ms. Platt:

This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly- spaced seats for school bus occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should face forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, as you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 605 Suwanne St., MS-57 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:10/26/94

ID: nht76-5.2

DATE: 08/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

COPYEE: ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.; U.S. TESTING CO., INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretations regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles.

Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system "can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint." Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct.

Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturers's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure.

In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crush requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct.

It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in the standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation.

In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, the agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar.

SINCERELY,

April 6, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 209 Demonstration Procedures

FMVSS 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies in detail performance requirements which must be met by automotive seat belt assemblies. The manner in which conformance with these requirements is to be demonstrated is outlined in S5 of FMVSS 209. Both the performance requirements and the demonstration procedures reflect the design characteristics of those types of seat belt assemblies commonly in use when the standard was written. We have experienced difficulty in applying these requirements to the single loop type seat belt assembly employed on current Volvo vehicles.

Attached are a discussion of section S4.4(b) and a discussion of sections S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) of FMVSS 209 outlining our interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 209 apply to single loop type seat belt assemblies. Also attached are illustrations of the Volvo single loop seat belt assembly. Your verification that our interpretation of FMVSS 209, as stated in the attached discussions, is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 209 would be appreciated.

Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the undersigned. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3)

S5.2(d)(3) specifies that a seat belt buckle shall be subjected to a compressive force of 400 pounds applied ". . . anywhere on a test line that is coincident with the centerline of the belt extended through the buckle . . ." (alternative 1) or ". . . on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees . . ." (alternative 2). The requirements which shall be met, when tested in this manner, are found in S4.3(d)(3).

The intent of these requirements is expressed in Docket 69-23, Notices 1 and 2, published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4641) and on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4607), respectively, where it is stated that the test will tend to eliminate buckle designs which are prone to accidental damage, or which release during the initial phase of the accident.

For a design where the buckle is rigidly mounted on the floor between the front seats (see attached description), its location protects it from accidental damage and from release during the initial phase of an accident. It is our interpretation that if the buckle crush requirements are at all applicable to buckles of this design and location, they shall be tested in accordance with alternative 1 above and the force shall be applied as indicated on the attached description. The basis for this interpretation is that the only damage which may occur results from compression if the seats are displaced as a result of a side impact, where the protective effect of a belt in any case can be discussed.

Therefore we request you to:

(1) state if the buckle crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3), when tested in accordance with S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to the described type of buckles, and

(2) if so, if our interpretation as to how this test shall be conducted is correct.

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.4(b)

S4.4(b) specifies requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and in the upper torso restraint, respectively. Then S4.4(b)(3) specifies requirements for components which are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints.

A Type 2 seat belt assembly which is designed as a continuous loop seat belt with a sliding locking tongue, can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint. Therefore we interpret S4.4(b)(1) and (2) as not directly applicable to such a design of seat belts. Only S4.4(b)(3) should apply, which indirectly covers the same aspect of performance. The maximum elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(4) and (5) can be met by limiting the double-roller block travel to 10 inches when the 6000 pounds force is applied.

The breaking strength requirement of S4.4(b)(6) for a webbing cut of the pelvic restraint should be applicable to any webbing cut in a continuous loop seat belt.

In accordance with our interpretation, a continuous loop seat belt assembly should be tested as indicated in the following figure:

As can be seen from this figure, the test set up includes all attachment hardware, and the positions of the components simulate as close as possible their actual positions in a vehicle.

We request that you confirm our interpretation as stated above.

(Graphics omitted) Part of drawing No 1290538

(Graphics omitted)