ID: 9544

Mr. Bob Carver
Product Engineering
Wayne Wheeled Vehicles
13311 Industrial Parkway
Marysville, OH 43040

Dear Mr. Carver:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

1.There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2.Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217 d:3/24/94

ID: nht94-7.26

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

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

ID: aiam0311

Dear Mrs. Rothschild: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1971, in which yo inquired whether a particular safety belt system, described in a patent application, would qualify as a 'passive restraint' within the meaning of the Occupant Crash Protection standard. We have delayed an answer to your inquiry, pending issuance of amendments to that standard that were made on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), in response to petitions for reconsideration.; You describe your system as one in which 'you have to manually pivo the belt in order to take your seat in the car'. From that point on, however, everything is automatic . . .' The issue, then is whether such a system is a 'means that require[s] no action by vehicle occupants,' in the words of the standard.; Our position is that such a system would not meet the above requiremen of the standard, since it is a system that does require action by the occupant, *i.e.*, pivoting the belt. By 'no action' is meant just that--no action by occupants other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. We recognize that in some cases, the action that is required may be relatively slight. In terms of regulatory categories, however, we consider it important to distinguish 'no-action' systems from 'forced-action' systems, of which the most commonly discussed example is the seat belt with an ignition interlock. Your system appears clearly to come within the forced-action category.; Please note that although we are glad to provide interpretations i response to specific questions such as yours, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration generally does not issue overall 'approvals' of any vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, with respect to conformity with the standards.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator

ID: 77-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1977, question whether the requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, for a restraining barrier of specified size in front of certain designated seating positions necessitates the provision of an additional barrier surface in front of those portions of a bench seat that do not form part of the designated seating positions. You describe a front-row two-passenger bench seat in a bus (with a seat back that extends beyond the bench to provide adequate restraint for a three-passenger seat aft of it) and ask about the restraining barrier that is required in front of the two-passenger front-row seat.

Paragraph S5.2.2 requires that the perimeter of the restraining barrier coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required. This means that the restraining barrier must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the designated seating position or positions for which it is required. Therefore, a seat with only two designated seating positions must only be equipped with a restraining barrier in front of those two seating positions.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

January 19, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this leter is to get an interpretation regarding paragraph S5.2.2, Barrier Position and Rear Surface Area, of FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The subject paragraph reads "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required."

In the development of this standard it has been our understanding that NHTSA was contemplating a possible passenger loss on the right front seat of the school bus. This would necessitate a special seat at the right front position which would have seating provision for two passengers and a seat back wide enough to provide barrier protection for the three passengers in the second front seat on the right side. With this configuration the barrier in front of the right front seat would be a two passenger barrier.

We have designed such a seating and barrier configuration as described above. * We would like confirmation of our interpretation that paragraph S5.2.2 allows this configuration.

* See enclosed photos showing mockup of this seat and barrier arrangement.

Thank you for your early attention and reply to this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 12009.ZTV

Mr. Craig Nearman
Q. C. Manager
Load King Trailers
Box 427
Elk Point
South Dakota 57025

Dear Mr. Nearman:

This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1996, asking whether a revised conspicuity scheme for one of Load King's trailers meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

According to the engineering drawing you enclosed, the trailer in question has an overall length of almost 51 feet. The trailer has three sets of wheels near the rear end. Previously, conspicuity tape 12 inches in length was applied to the end of the three wheel boxes. However, your Engineering department has changed the design at the end of each wheelbox, and you tell us that you are no longer able to place the 12-inch piece of conspicuity tape there. This means that the rearmost 14 feet 4 inches of the side of the trailer will bear no conspicuity marking. You tell us that it is Engineering's opinion that "over 50 percent of the length of the unit is covered by conspicuity tape and wheel boxes are considered discontinued surfaces on which conspicuity tape would not be needed in reference to Sec. 3.4.1.4 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA's) 'Trailer Conspicuity Systems'". You have asked whether you are required to have conspicuity tape on the 14 feet 4 inches.

In order to understand this question better, Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on June 18, 1996. We learned that there are holes at the end of the wheelbox in both the old and new designs. However, in the new design, the hole has been raised so that it is no longer possible to put the 12-inch piece of material across the wheelbox without cutting a notch in its lower portion to accommodate the upper end of the raised hole. Load King has, in fact, been manufacturing trailers with tape notched in this manner. However, if NHTSA agrees with the opinion of your Engineering department, Load King would discontinue applying notched tape on the wheelbox ends.

We do not agree with your Engineering department. First, we do not know what "Sec. 3.4.1.4" refers to. The conspicuity requirements are set forth in paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. 108. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4(a), retroreflective sheeting need not be applied to "discontinuous surfaces". Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a), reflective material must be applied to the side "originating and terminating as close to the front and rear as practicable." The paragraph also provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable."

With respect to Load King, we note that in trailers of both wheelbox designs, Load King has decided that the most "practicable" location to terminate the side reflective material is on the third wheelbox at the extreme end of the trailer. This strip of material need not be continuous between its front and rear, and, in fact, there is a break in the continuity on Load King's trailers, where the tape temporarily ends in front of the first rear wheel before resuming at the wheelbox behind the first wheel, with successive interruptions and applications terminating on the third wheelbox, the spacing being as even as practicable. The top of the wheelbox hole creates a discontinuous surface and the tape is notched to take account of it. This configuration conforms with S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 and we see no reason for Load King to change it.

If Load King wishes to mark only half the length of the trailer depicted, as it is permitted to do under Standard No. 108, it may not do so by reversing its previous practicability determination and removing tape that has until now marked the extreme ends of the trailer. Further, Load King must take into account the limiting language of S5.7.1.4.2(a) that where material is discontinuous between the extreme ends, the spaces between must be "distributed as evenly as practicable." We recommend that Load King consult us if it intends to redesign its existing conspicuity system.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/11/96

ID: nht79-4.4

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting our opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.

You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will have approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is "likely to be used" is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.

American Motors Corporation

October 11, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter addresses our intended passenger seating designation for the rear seat of our planned 1981 model AMC Spirit. We believe our plans are consistent with the intent of the NHTSA. We have based our designation upon our perception of "likely use" as we interpret the history surrounding the definition of designated seating position as published by the NHTSA as 49CFR Part 571.3.

The designation definition was the subject of a rather lengthy discussion at a periodic DOT/Industry meeting conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan on August 15, 1979. The discussion essentially focused to the confusion surrounding the criteria for establishing the seating capacity of small-car rear seat with hip space less than 50 inches. The NHTSA counsel at the meeting reported to those present that a small-car rear seat with hip space well below 50 inches would not likely be considered a three-passenger seat by the NHTSA.

Our planned 1981 AMC Spirit rear seat has approximately 43 inches of hip space. The seat cushion is contoured for two persons with distict recessed areas for each person's buttocks loacted essentially aft of the two front-seating positions. The recessed areas result in a lower "H" point at the two intended seating positions and thereby provide incremental headroom. The seat is essentially unchanged from our 1979 and 1980 models which we have designated as a two-passenger configuration.

We are planning to designate the 1981 AMC Spirit rear-seat configuration as two-passenger. We believe our determination conforms with the subjective criteria for seating designation specification, as defined, and is responsive to the likely use of Spirit owners. However, to assure avoidance of any post-production discussion of compliance, we hereby ask you and your staff to review our particular configuration and advise us of your determination. We request your concurrence with our two-passenger designation conclusion prior to November 1, 1979.

Thank you for your consideration.

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

ID: 23663Tunick_seat_bolster_DENIED_df

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078





Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about the pitch, roll, and yaw requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). I apologize for the delay in responding. We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers. As discussed, we do not agree with your suggestion that the seat cushion can be removed to meet the standard's requirements.

BACKGROUND

Standard No. 225 requires each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to have a child restraint anchorage system at each of two forward-facing rear designated seating positions (see S4.4(a) and (b)). The anchorage system must meet certain configuration, strength and location requirements. S15.1.2.2 of Standard No. 225 specifies use of a "child restraint fixture (CRF)" to locate the lower bars of an anchorage system. That paragraph specifies that, with the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion, the bottom surface of the CRF must have attitude angles within certain limits (with angles measured relative to the vehicle horizontal, longitudinal and transverse reference planes). (Pitch must be 15 10, roll 0 5, and yaw 0 10.) Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004, are permitted to meet the requirements of S15 of Standard No. 225 instead of the requirements of S9. We stated in a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration that these pitch, roll and yaw requirements will be incorporated into the requirements of S9. 65 FR 46628.

S9.3 of Standard No. 225 requires that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted in a specified manner.

You state that it is difficult to fit the CRF and/or actual child restraints in the rear seats of some sports cars. You ask about the permissibility of installing a lower anchorage beneath each rear seat cushion. You state:

The child restraint anchorage system would be used by the vehicle owner by first removing the seat bottom cushion and storing it in the vehicle's luggage compartment. The CRF, during testing, and the child seat, during real-world operation, would then be installed so as to rest stably on the metal tub (floor) of the vehicle. The location of each anchorage would be labeled as required by FMVSS 225 and the method and need of removing the seat bottom would also be labeled (the seat bottom would most probably be attached by Velcro). * * *

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Is the Proposed System permissible if removal of the seat bottom cushion is necessary in order for the CRF to fit in the vehicle and/or to meet pitch, roll and yaw criteria?

We do not interpret Standard No. 225 in a manner that would permit removal of the seat cushion. S15.1.2.2(a) of Standard No. 225 specifies that the bottom surface of the CRF shall have specified attitude angles "[w]ith the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion." (Emphasis added.) Under this provision, the seat cushion is not removed when measuring attitude angles.

In addition, S9.3 of Standard No. 225 specifies that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.3(a) and (b). S9.3(a) and (b) state:

(a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and

(b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward position.

Neither of these provisions contemplate removing the seat cushion. Accordingly, we conclude that the seat cushion is not removed when measuring pitch, roll and yaw of the CRF. If your vehicle cannot meet the requirements with the seat cushion in place, the vehicle cannot be certified as meeting Standard No. 225.

Question 2: Is the Proposed System permissible if the CRF fits in the vehicle and meets the pitch, roll and yaw requirements with the seat bottom in place (i.e., not removed), but--

• The child seat itself, when installed, is unacceptably unstable (e.g., as regards pitch, roll, and yaw), and
• The lower anchorages must be located behind the middle of the seat back and thus potentially dangerous?

Our answer to the first part of your question is that we will evaluate the vehicle's compliance with the pitch, roll and yaw requirements using the CRF with the seat bottom in place. If all child restraints are "unacceptably unstable" despite the CRF fitting the seat, then that would suggest a design problem with the rear seat, and/or a problem with the CRF, since the device is intended to be representative of a child restraint. We would appreciate learning about any situation where the standard might permit vehicle seats and anchorage systems to be designed such that child restraints can be attached in an unacceptably unstable manner. Detailed sketches would be helpful, with vehicle dimensions included.

Our answer to the second part of this question is that an anchorage system would not be found to non-comply with the standard notwithstanding the location of the lower anchorages relative to an adult passenger's back. It should be noted, however, that you provided little information about any scenario under which the anchorages would be located "behind the middle of the seat back." With regard to passenger discomfort and safety in rear impacts, the vehicle manufacturer might want to consider using foldable or stowable anchorages, which are now permitted under Standard No. 225.

Question 3a: If the answer to either question 1 or question 2 is "no," could the vehicle manufacturer receive an exemption under S5(e)? If an exemption is available and is obtained, could the vehicle manufacturer still install the Proposed System on a voluntary basis?

S5(e) excludes certain rear designated seating positions from the requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at the position. To qualify for the exclusion, interference with transmission and/or suspension components must prevent the location of the lower bars of a child restraint changes system anywhere within the zone described by the standard such that the attitude angles could be met. Unless the situations described in your letter met those criteria, the exception would not be available. In response to the second part of your question, if the vehicle were excluded from the requirement to provide the lower anchorage bars because of impracticability, then by definition the bars would not be able to be installed, either voluntarily or to meet the provisions of the standard. Moreover, under S4.1 of Standard No. 225, each tether anchorage and child restraint anchorage system installed voluntarily or pursuant to the standard after September 1, 1999, must meet the configuration, location, marking and strength requirements of the standard.

Before closing, we would like to address a further issue you raised. In your letter and in other correspondence with the agency, you have expressed a belief that S9.3 is invalid because, by requiring the back seat of vehicles to fit the CRF, S9.3 allegedly violates a "no design standard prohibition." Your belief is mistaken. We seek to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are performance-oriented as possible, but if need be they may have the effect of imposing certain design requirements or limitations. The CRF is representative of a child restraint system. Just as we require lap and lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies to be capable of adjustment to fit occupants whose dimensions and weight range from those of a 5^th-percentile adult female to those of a 95^th-percentile adult male (S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209, 49 CFR 571.209), we require vehicle seats to fit the CRF to ensure better compatibility and fit between vehicle seats and child restraint systems to improve the performance of child restraints in protecting children. Further, S9.3 is performance-oriented, in that manufacturers retain flexibility in designing their vehicle seats as long as they allow placement of the CRF, and the standard does not specify dimensions or other features of the vehicle seat. Accordingly, it does not create a "design standard" that would be prohibited by statute.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/25/02

ID: nht87-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, N.Y. 12232

Dear Mr. Chauvin:

This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bus es are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for h ead form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to a bsorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are requ ired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load require ments set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHTS A had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (I) addition, the proposed sear strength requirement was higher than that adopted in St andard No. 222.2 Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply that t he seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which woul d set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning th e load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerati on of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pro ducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product with NH TSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by S103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the gov ernment of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same aspect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Stand ard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher requirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts high er state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, South West Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses, In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem tha t needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register, Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific d ate is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in both do cuments.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accommodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufactured since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that can a ccommodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know If manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accommodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

October 29, 1986

Mr. William Smith Department of Transportation N.R.M.-12 Room 5320 400 7th Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school buse s (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208. S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht94-1.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow .

1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstructi on and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Op ening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicat ed definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or obje ct that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the doo r opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, th ey would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all t ypes of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bu s."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

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

ID: 14-001678 IMMI STAR crs