ID: nht73-6.3

DATE: 11/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1973, requesting a clarification of S7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) (Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2).

As you are aware, a proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (9-1-75) was published on August 20, 1973 with an anticipated September 1975 effective date (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 1). In the event that the proposed amendment of loading conditions is adopted, the present passenger car requirement, that the vehicle be at its GVWR during testing, will be superseded by the requirement that the passenger car be loaded "to its unloaded vehicle weight plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity weight, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary dummies." Under these specifications, rear seat occupant weight will not be a factor of the test load condition unless a specific test requirement calls for dummies to be placed in designated rear seating positions. The proposed amendment would also make it unnecessary to firmly fix the dummies to the vehicle as is presently the case under S7.2.

We have also noted your views on luggage capacity weight and are placing your letter in Docket No. 73-20 as a comment to be considered.

If you require any further clarification, please do not hesitate to let us know.

OCTOBER 16, 1973

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sir,

49 CFR, PART 571 Docket No. 70-20; Notice 2 Standard No. 301 - Fuel System Integrity

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited seeks clarification on the meaning of S 7.2 as published in the Federal Register 38 FR 22397, dated August 20, 1973.

S 7.1 requires the vehicle under test to be loaded to its GVWR and S 7.2 requires weight in excess of the unloaded vehicle weight to be firmly fixed to the vehicle so that it absorbs no significant portion of the vehicle's Kinetic energy.

It seems to us that the only way in which the added weight can absorb the vehicle's Kinetic energy is by actual deformation of the weight itself. Thus, it would be unacceptable to apply added weight which would reinforce the front structure of the vehicle. This would be entirely logical with a front engined vehicle, but would pose serious problems with a rear engined vehicle in which the luggage compartment was at the front of the vehicle. Would there not be practical difficulties in achieving the correct weight distribution, and is it not reasonable for the designer to intend the luggage in these circumstances to absorb some of the vehicle's Kinetic energy, particularly that due to its share of the total mass, when the vehicle is loaded to its GVWR?

2

Rolls-Royce Motors Limited does not make vehicles with luggage stowage capacity at the front, so that particular problem is of no immediate concern to us at this moment. We would, however, be very concerned if the conditions of S 7.2 were to be applied to any future rear barrier crash test, and hence our interest in seeking clarification. Our own suggestion would be to omit the luggage weight from the vehicle test weight, while a specification is drawn up for inexpensive test pieces representing more closely the density and crush characteristics of real life passenger luggage. Such test pieces would be stowed in the luggage compartment but not secured to the vehicle structure, again representing more closely real life conditions.

Docket No. 73-20, Notice 1. proposes an amendment to Standard No. 301, effective September 1975, which would permit the installation of dummies in the front outboard seating positions. It is not clear to us how the weight of the rear seat occupants is to be provided when ballasting the vehicle up to its GVWR. We sincerely hope that S 7.2 of Docket No. 70-20, Notice 2, will not be interpreted to mean that the added weight due to rear seat passengers must be rigidly attached to the vehicle. For obvious economic reasons, which are of vital importance to the low volume manufacturer, we would want to combine testing against Standard No. 301 with testing against other Standards, such as No. 208, and S 5.1 of Standard No. 208 requires anthropomorphic test devices to be installed at each designated seating position. The restraint systems used for these dummies to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 208 could not be described as rigid.

We should, therefore, be most grateful if you could clarify the requirements of S 7.2 of Standard No. 301 regarding the means to be used for installing additional weight to bring the test vehicle up to its GVWR.

Yours faithfully,

J. B. H. Knight Chief Development and Car Safety Engineer

Copies to: Trevor Williams Rolls-Royce Motors Inc. New Jersey.

K. B. Barnes The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders Ltd. London.

ID: aiam4754

"Dear Mr. McCarron: This responds to your letter asking about th application of Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a particular mattress design, and how the mattress would be tested under the standard. I regret the delay in responding. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 302 sets forth a listing of the vehicle occupant compartment components that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. Paragraph S4.1 includes a reference to 'mattress covers.' You ask whether NHTSA would consider six components of your mattress design to be included in the term 'mattress cover' and thus subject to Standard 302. (The first five components you ask about, and a portion of the sixth, satisfy the criterion in S4.2 of being within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space.) As we understand your sketch, the first three components (which you called the 'cover,' 'foam' and 'foam backing') encase the mattress core, or filling. As such, if our understanding is correct, these three constitute the mattress ticking, which we consider as the fabric case permanently enclosing the filling of a mattress. NHTSA has said in past interpretations of Standard 302 that the term 'mattress cover' includes both a removable covering put over a finished mattress and the mattress ticking. Thus, the first three components would be subject to the standard. These three components, which you said in a telephone conversation are quilted together, would be tested separately under S4.2.1 of the standard if they do not adhere to other materials at every point of contact. (The fact that these three are quilted, or stitched, indicates to us that they do not so adhere.) If any of these components adhere to other material at every point of contact, then it would be tested as a composite with the other material. The fourth component in your sketch is the mattress 'fill.' Paragraph S4.1 of the standard lists mattress covers only. NHTSA has consistently interpreted S4.1 as not including the mattress filling. The fifth component is a fabric 'corner reinforcement' that appears to be approximately two inches in length and stitched on the outside of the mattress cover. NHTSA indicated in interpretative letters of Standard 302 dated December 15, 1972 and May 1, 1972 that a component that is 'incorporated into' a component that is listed in S4.1 is subject to the standard. (The agency said in the December 1972 letter that 'mattress cover' includes tufting, since tufting is incorporated into mattress covers.) Since the fifth component is sewn to the corner of the mattress and appears to be made part of the mattress cover, we believe that the corner reinforcement is incorporated into the mattress cover. Thus, the fifth component would be subject to the standard. If it does not adhere to another material at every point of contact, it is tested separately under S4.2.1. The sixth component is the 'fill backing' which appears to be an internal divider between the mattress fill and the springs. It appears from your sketch that the fill backing is not part of the mattress ticking, because the backing is inside the mattress and is separate from the mattress ticking. Thus, we conclude the sixth component is excluded from the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht71-5.35

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hackney Bros. Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1971, in which you requested our opinion on the application of Standard No. 207 to swivel type pedestal seats.

Your problem arises from the method specified in S5.1.1 for the application of the force required by S4.2(a) of 20 times the weight of the seat. Although your letter does not state the problem directly, it appears that when a forward force is applied from behind the seat, as shown in the figures accompanying S5.1.1, the seat will tend to swivel. Your solution is to attach a T-shaped structure to the seat and to apply the force to the leg of the T forward of the swivel point.

The initial question raised by your letter is whether a seat that swivels under the application of a force through its back as shown in Figure 1, will be considered to fail to withstand the force and thereby fail the standard.

On the basis of our present information, we cannot say that such a swiveling action would result in a failure of the standard. The engineering staff has expressed uncertainty as to the effects on the occupant if the seat swivels in a side or angular crash, but they are not prepared to say that it would present a hazard. Since the swiveling itself is not a failure, the remaining question is one of test procedure. Our opinion is that the procedure you describe, using a T shaped structure, appears to be an acceptable means of applying the test force to the seat.

ID: 16075.ogm

Michael D. Witten
President
RW Industries
598 Eaton Ave.
Denuba, CA 93618

Dear Mr. Witten:

This responds to your letter concerning a device you have designed which, as you described, has "the purpose of positioning the cross over section of seat belts in automobiles. Later in the letter you refer to this device as the "Seat Belt Positioner." You request that this office provide you with the legal data regarding the manufacturing and marketing of items used as automobile accessories.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. With a device such as yours, the realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Finally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:209

ID: aiam3132

Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You referred to the SAE standard on motorcycle headlamps, J584, whic specifies that the 'bulb or unit shall be operated at its rated voltage during the [photometric] test.' You asked whether the 'rated voltage' of J584 is the same rated voltage of ECE Regulation 37 when the bulb in question is a European bulb bearing an E mark signifying compliance with Regulation 37.; The term 'rated voltage' is not defined by J584 or by the correspondin standard on sealed beam headlamps, J579c. It is our opinion, however, that 'rated voltage' is the equivalent of 'design voltage' on the basis of the SAE standard that covers bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps, J573d, *Lamps Bulbs and Sealed Units*. Table 2 of J573d lists voltages for such headlamps under the heading of 'Design.'; We realize that your question arises in the context of recent testin by NHTSA of Cibie headlamps, incorporating European H4 halogen bulbs, for compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 for motorcycle headlighting. NHTSA tested these headlamps at 12.8 volts and discovered that the maximum allowable 5000 candela at test point 4D-V was exceeded by many of the lamps tested. You raised the question whether NHTSA should not have tested at 12 volts, the 'rated value' given by Regulation 37 for the H4 bulb, at which value all lamps tested by NHTSA would have complied at test point 4D-V.; We do not believe that NHTSA is required by J584 to test the H4 bulb a 12 volts. Regulation 37 specifies a 'test voltage' of 13.2 for the H4 bulb, a point apparently recognized by EFPE Company's catalogue 'Turned on Lighting' which gives wattage figures for the headlamps in question 'at 13.2 design volts as specified by the bulb manufacturer.' If anything, NHTSA was overly conservative in testing its lamps at 12.8 volts, for it is apparent that had it tested at 13.2 volts even more failures would have occurred.; As Roman Brooks explained to you, it has been the European practice a nearly as we can determine to test the H4 bulb at 12.8 volts, apparently in recognition that the higher voltage levels are closer to those generated by the electrical systems of the motor vehicles on which the headlamps are installed. Given this fact and Regulation 37's specification of 13.2 test volts, we do not believe that a lamp manufacturer could successfully argue in court that J584 was ambiguous and should be construed against NHTSA in any attempt by this agency to enforce motorcycle headlighting requirements on the basis of results of test conducted at 12.8 volts.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-1.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 22, 1990

FROM: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International. Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-90 To Keith D. Kroll and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; Std.217); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

Hehr International, Inc. manufactures windows and emergency exit windows for buses. We are looking for clarification of the marking of and operating instructions for window emergency exits; specifically, the requirements of paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 o f Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Per paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217, "...and each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism." We interpret this as two labels; one designating the "Emergency Exit" and the other giving unlatching instructions located 6 inches from the latch/es.

With this interpretation, it follows that the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5.2 apply only to the "Emergency Exit" marking and not to the unlatching instructions. Additionally, S5.5.2 requires the marking must be legible from the aisle with the seats occupied. Again, we interpret this to apply to the "Emergency Exit" marking only. There are many seating configurations where the latch and unlatching instructions (6 " from the latch) are not visible from the aisle because the "adjacent seat" passenger totally covers them.

Our position has, on numerous occasions, been discussed with NHTSA engineers. The most recent was 23 October 1989 with Jeff Jiusippe who further reviewed this with his supervisor, Mr. Robert Kraus, and called back the same day stating that they (NHTSA) a greed with our position.

We receive numerous calls from our various bus window customers on the legibility of the 'unlatching instructions' to which we respond with our position that the 'unlatching instructions' do not have to meet the legibility requirements of paragraph S5.5. 2; S5.5.2 applies to the exit identification only.

We request your written concurrance with the preceeding interpretation of FMVSS paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2.

ID: nht89-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/89

FROM: MARCIA M. AVIS

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO MARCIA M. AVIS, A35, STD 213

TEXT: I am inquiring as to the saftey standards and regulations for an accessory seat pad to be used with the child's booster car seat -- or restraint seat. It is a seat cushion approximately 1/4 inch thick to be placed under the childs booster seat. It will be held in place with the strap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat. The material is a quilted polyester fabric. I need to know the regulations as to positioning of seat with this pad, flammability or oth er factors involved with placing a pad under the child's seat. Please write or call to the address and number on letterhead. The cushion will provide comfort and allow the child to rest their head while sleeping.

ID: 2774y

Mr. Malcolm B. Mathieson
Vice President, Engineering
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by the FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency.

As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seeking resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:217 d:l2/3/90

ID: nht87-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: DALLAS MCCLAIN -- PRO TOUR, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION/INTERPRETATION OF SEATING STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM ERICK Z. JONES TO DALLAS MCCLAIN; REDBOOK A-32, STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Sir,

Upon the recommendation of your technical reference division, I have formulated my inquiries to your office for interpretation and clarification. This company is a manufacturer of bus seating (NON-School bus) and we believe we surpass all applicable Fed eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There are some points which we would like a legal opinion on for our customers as well as ourselves. Below are several questions which your office will hopefully be able to answer for us. Thank you.

A. What is the legal determination of a 'bus' as opposed to a 'multipurpose vehicle'? Is this definition based on number of passengers, or gross vehicle weight? Or both?

B. In the first paragraph of S4.2 of MVSS 207, there is reference to side-facing seats or passenger seat on a bus, which appear to be exceptions. Following this paragraph are the performance requirements. Are side-facing seats and passenger seats on a bus exempted from these performance requirements? Are these two items covered under another safety standard? If so, which one?

C. Keeping in mind we are assuming NON-School Bus applications, is perimeter seating a 'side-facing seat' such as mentioned above and does MVSS 207 testing apply to these seating configurations? Are there any existing requirements for cushions which are removeable such as perimeter seating arrangements? Or it is just the frame structure which must meet test specifications?

D. While seats not designated for use while the vehicle is moving (MVSS 207, S4.4) must be labeled, must other occupant seating subject to MVSS 207 and MVSS 302 be labeled with a 'law label' indicating the seat has met these standards?

Thank you very much for your help in resolving these questions. If further information is needed to render a finding, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht94-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1994

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject Request For Interpretation - FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Jane L. Dawson (A43; Std. 210; VSA 108(b) (2))

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Thomas Built Buses, Inc. is in the process of releasing a school bus passenger seat that may eventually be used on school buses produced by all body manufacturers. Since this is a new product line for us, we have several concerns about certifying compli ance of our seat on other manufacturers' vehicles.

We know that NHTSA recognizes that in many instances due to cost considerations, manufacturers simulate test conditions when performing compliance testing by using test fixtures rather than testing in actual school buses. NHTSA addresses that fact in S5 of FMVSS 210 by requiring that anchorages be "connected to material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment at that seating position" and that "t he geometry of the attachment duplicates the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly."

Traditionally, when we test seat belt anchorages on our own school bus passenger seat, the seat is attached to an actual 14 gauge school bus floor, and force is applied according to the testing requirements of FMVSS 210. As a result of the force applica tion, the floor undergoes a certain amount of buckling. As the floor begins to buckle, the angle of the belt relative to the seat frame changes from the belt angle that's present at the initiation of the test.

When the same test is conducted using a school bus passenger seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than an actual floor section, there is no buckling of the floor, therefore, there is no change to the belt angle when the anchorages are subjected to the force requirements of FMVSS 210. Since there's no change to the belt angle, the use of a school bus bench seat mounted on a 1/2" steel plate test fixture doesn't necessarily duplicate the - conditions present when the bench seat is moun ted on an actual school bus floor.

Thomas Built Buses requests an interpretation on the following:

When a seat manufacturer certifies compliance with FMVSS 210 for installation in a school bus, do the requirements of FMVSS 210 allow the seat manufacturer's certification to be based on the seat's more rigid attachment to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture or must the seat manufacturer's certification be based on the seat's attachment to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor?

If the seat manufacturer uses a 1/2" steel plate test fixture, must the final stage school bus manufacturer who installs the seat retest using their own 14 gauge floor before compliance with applicable standards is certified?

Please contact me if you have additional questions or need additional information.

Sincerely