ID: nht92-9.34

DATE: January 30, 1992

FROM: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Klopp (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Freedman Seating manufactures seating systems which are used in a variety of vehicles including shuttle buses, tour buses, etc. Examples of our seats are attached. The frames are mounted to the floor and, in many cases, to the wall of the vehicle also.

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS 210 regarding seats having multiple seating positions and with their seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame. Does the strength test in FMVSS 210 require simultaneous testing of all seat belt anchorages for each seat?

Please give me a call if you require additional information.

ID: 77-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: One bus manufacturer, Recreational Vehicles, Inc., is currently manufacturing buses from one model vehicle (GMC-RV) that uses a knock-out rear window for the rear emergency exit. The rear window has a ring inserted in the rubber seal that allows the window to fall out or be easily pushed out after the ring is pulled outward (see attached pictures of converted GMC-RV).

Section 5.4, FMVSS No. 217, does not address the performance requirements of this type of window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

We request an interpretation regarding the applicability of this type of knock-out rear window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

ATTACH.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. T. Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. L. T. Mitchell, Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, L.P. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter to me regarding the questions you share with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) about paragraph @5.1. 2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our respons e. As you know, your letter has supplemented by information we received in a letter from Mr. Harry Gough of the DMV. We have also incorporated into your inquiry information you provided on February 26 to Mr. Paliokas of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety C ompliance concerning the dimensions of the seat back in question. I regret the delay in this response.

The first question you ask is whether @5.1.2 applies to the last row "davenport" type seat found in a rear engine school bus. The answer is yes. By its terms, @5.1.2 applies to "each school bus passenger seat" and makes no exception for the rearmost seat . The second question you ask relates to the concerns you and the DMV have about the requirements in @5.1.2 for seat back surface area. Because Connecticut prohibits the top of rear divan seats to be higher than the lower edge of rear emergency windows, th e state wishes to reduce the height of the seat back on a seat located in the last row of the school bus and reduce the width of the seat cushion (to 29 inches) by use of "spacers." You enclosed a diagram of the seating design to illustrate how the propo sal compares with your standard school bus seat and called the new seat "cushion 2" and the area of its seat back "area 2. " The DMV sent us a diagram showing the location of the spacers on cushion 2.

You believe that the DMV's desired seat back design would not comply with Standard No. 222 and ask us whether you have made a correct determination. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 222 regulates the height and surface area of seat backs on school buses. It states:

Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 20 inches above the s eating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20.

In order to ascertain the compliance with @5.1.2 of the seat back in question, the area of the seat back (in the front projected view) between the two horizontal planes referenced in @5.1.2 is calculated. To calculate this, dimensions are needed for the height of the seat back above the seating reference point (SRP) and the width of the seat back. The information you provided to Mr. Paliokas concerned the SRP and seat back height. According to that information and the diagram you enclosed, the seat back for cushion 2 is five inches lower than your standard school bus seat back. Thus, the height above the SRP of the seat back for cushion 2 is approximately 14.25 inches.

As to the width of the seat back, the question arises whether it should be considered to be 29 or 39 inches wide. While the seat back appears to be 39 inches wide in your illustration, the "spacers" located on each end of the seat in front of the seat ba ck reduce the seat width to 29 inches.

The use of the spacers brings up two related issues. First, are they adequate in rendering portions of the bench seat inappropriate for use as seating surface areas? You as the manufacturer must make a good faith determination of their adequacy. We do no t have enough information at this time to answer this question: however, we will assume for the purposes of this discussion that the answer is yes.

Second, assuming that the spacers are adequate in making portions of the bench seat unlikely to be used for seating, should the surface of the seat back behind the spacers be considered part of cushion 2's seat back surface area for purposes of @5. 1.2? We believe the answer to this question is no. Since non-seating areas are not required to be compartmentalized between high seat backs or restraining barriers, we do not consider portions of a seat back behind non-seating positions as part of the seat ba ck surf ace area required by @5.1.2 to be provided for school bus seats. Hence, if the spacers render cushion 2 into a 29 inch seat, we conclude that the width of the corresponding seat back is 29 inches.

Under @5. 1.2, the front surface area of the seat back between the two referenced planes must be not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20. The required surface area for a seat back of a 29 inch bench seat thus must be a t least 522 square inches. Since the seat back for cushion 2 has a height above the SRP of 14.25 inches and a width of 29 inches, its area is only 413.25 square inches. Therefore, the seat back does not meet @5. 1.2 of Standard No. 222.

In his letter to us, Mr. Gough argues that the proposed design would not violate the purpose of Standard No. 222 since the seat back in question would be located in the rear of the school bus and no person would be sitting or standing behind it. We canno t accept this argument. Paragraph 52 of Standard No. 222 states: "The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers." In accordance with this intent, Standard No. 222 requires school buses to comply with "compartmentalization" requirements to provide passenger crash protection. To achieve the benefits of compartmentalization, it i s important that passengers be protected and confined in the event of a crash within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. The seat back area required by @5.1.2 is necessary, therefore, not only to provide protection to passengers seated behind the seat back, but also to ensure that the protective compartment is provided for occupants of the seat.

I hope this letter is helpful. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Gough for his Information. Please contact my office if you or he have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 17, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: FMVSS #222 Section @5.1.2 - Seat Back Height and Surface Area.

Dear Ms. Jones:

One of our customers has requested an interpretation of FMVSS #222 @5.1.2 - "Seat Back Height and Surface Area".

1)Does @5.1.2 apply to the last row "Davenport" type seat that is found in a rear engine school bus?

2) The Davenport seat back width is 90 inches. Each cushion is 39" wide. If the answer to question number 1 is yes, what seat backs surface area may be used to meet the requirements of @5.1.2 for the total cushion width?

The enclosed illustration shows area number 1 and 2 respectively located above cushion number 1 and 2. Thomas Built Buses interprets @5.1.2 to mean that area 1 must meet the area requirement of @5.1.2 for cushion 1. Thus area 2 with its reduce seat back height does not meet @5.1.2 for cushion 2. Is the Thomas interpretation correct?

Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

L. T. MITCHELL, Specification Engineer

LTH/jw

Enclosure

cc: Matt Mathieson Ron Marion Howard Smith, Connecticutt Distributor

ID: nht87-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norm Alexander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service Stratoflex, Inc. P.O. Box 10398 Fort Worth, TX 76114

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This responds to your two letters to me concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for air brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to explain that Standard No. 106 has separate sections setting requirements for hoses, end fittings, and assemblies used in hydraulic, air and vacuum brake systems. The section of the standard that you are concerned with is S7, the requirements for air brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. Section S7.2 sets forth the labeling requirements for those items of equipment, and is further subdivided into three par ts: paragraph S7.2.1 regarding hose; S7.2.2 regarding end fittings; and S7.2.3 regarding assemblies.

Your first question asks for confirmation of your understanding that air brake hose is labeled according to paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e). Your understanding is correct. Air brake hoses (that are not part of a brake hose assembly) must be labeled acco rding to the specifications of paragraph S7.2.1. Paragraphs S7.2.1(a) through (e) list the required information.

You asked whether end fittings that are to be attached by means other than crimping or swaging are labeled pursuant to S7.2.2(a) through (d). You are correct that paragraphs S7.2.2(a) through (d) list the information required to be labeled on the end fit tings you described. They are labeled in the manner specified in the lead-in sentence of S7.2.2.

Your next question concerned labeling requirements for end fittings that are to be attached by crimping or swaging. You asked whether you would label those end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes, provide d that you also manufacture the brake hose assembly.

Paragraph S7.2.3.1 is part of the subparagraph which sets labeling requirements for assemblies. Thus, S7.2.3.1 describes an option for labeling air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging. A manufacturer of end fittin gs which are to be attached by crimping or swaging is not required to label the fittings if that manufacturer does not also assemble them. Such a manufacturer may voluntarily label its fittings. However, as explained below, if it voluntarily marks its fi ttings, the fitting manufacturer should keep records of its production lots showing whether the marking on a particular lot of end fittings is a voluntary label or whether it was made to identify itself as the assembler.

Because Standard No. 106 requires an assembler using crimped or swaged end fittings to identify itself as the manufacturer of the assembly, there is a chance for confusion if the assembler chooses to label by marking the end fittings pursuant to S7.2.3.1 and the fitting manufacturer had previously voluntarily marked the fittings with its own designation. In order to reduce the chances of confusion and facilitate enforcement efforts in determining who is responsible for the manufacture of the assembly, w e encourage manufacturers who voluntarily label their fittings to keep adequate records indicating whether they have sold the fittings separately to an assembler or whether they have used the fittings in assemblies they have produced themselves.

Your fourth question asked about labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies that use end fittings that are not attached by crimping or swaging. You are correct that Standard No. 106 requires only that the end fittings be labeled and does not set a labeling requirement for the assemblies. These provisions were made in the standard because NHTSA believed labeling requirements for assemblies having renewable or reusable end fittings were impractical. NHTSA concluded that with reusable end fittings , the assembler's identity could be lost or misapplied by a persons reassembling the Bet at a later date, and the chances for confusion concerning the identity of the assembler would be great.

Your fifth question asked whether air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, except those made and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in its own vehicles, may be labeled by means of a band pursuant to S7.2.3 or by marking the end fitting as specified in S7.2.3.1. The answer is yes. Standard No. 106 provides manufacturers of those types of assemblies the option of labeling their assemblies according to either S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1.

The second part of your fifth question also concerned Standard No. 106's labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. You asked whether your understanding is correct that a "component manufacturer's identi fication on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer: but bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not vehicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting."

Your understanding is correct. A manufacturer of crimped or swaged end fittings who also manufactures brake hose assemblies may satisfy the standard's labeling requirements by marking its identification on its fitting. A manufacturer of brake hose assemb lies who purchased its end fittings must label the assembly by a tag (pursuant to S7.2.3) or by labeling the end fitting (pursuant to S7.2.3.1).

Your next question asked whether standard No. 106 requires manufacturers to mark the date of assembly on their brake hose assemblies. The answer is no.

Your final question asked whether additional information may be entered on the hose assembly tag. The answer to your question is yes. NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 106 as permitting the labeling of brake hose with optional information in addition to that required by the standard if, in order to avoid confusion with the required information, the optional information appears on the opposite side of the hose. Based on those interpretations, we conclude that you are permitted to label your assemblies w ith optional information if the labeling is done in a manner that avoids confusion with the required information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 25, 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel Room 5219

Subject: FMVSS 106-74, as amended

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to my conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom on August 22, 1986; we respectfully submit our understanding of the marking/labeling requirements of Section S7, subject standard. We request written confirmation of this understanding or correction(s) as r equired. Stratoflex is a manufacturer of crimp and non crimp (screw together) fittings and hose to provisions of FMVSS 106.

1. Hose - per S7.2.1 (a) thru (e).

2. End Fittings (not crimped or swaged) - per 57.2.2 (a) thru (d).

3. End fittings (crimped or swaged) - per S7.2.3.1 (at least one fitting per assembly, assembler identification)

4. Hose assembly with non crimped/swaged fittings - No marking other than components (1 and 2 above).

5. Hose assembly with crimped/swaged fittings - Band per S7.2.3 (a) and (b) or fitting only per 3 above. (See note below)

NOTE: No marking required for hose assemblies assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer.

Item 3 above (and the alternate of item 5) indicates that component manufacturer's identification on a fitting is sufficient for hose assemblies fabricated by the component manufacturer; but, bulk products procured and assembled by a second party (not ve hicle manufacturer) must be marked by that assembler - tag or fitting.

Is the date of assembly (fittings to hose) required?

May additional data be entered on the hose assembly tag?

Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Please feel free to contact us if any additional clarification is required.

Very truly yours,

S T R A T O F L E X , I N C .

Norm Alexander, Manager Engineering Customer Service

ID: 06-007881as

ID: Labelpermanency_6507

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, Ohio 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter in which you requested clarification of the permanency requirement for labels under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, we would consider "permanent" a label conforming to the requirements you described in your letter and remaining legible for the life of the child restraint system (CRS) to which it is attached.

In your letter, you stated that your company believes that permanency definitions provided by the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), when taken together with previous interpretations provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), provide an appropriate definition for label permanency, as it applies to a CRS. The ASTM standard for CRSs provides that a label, excluding a label attached by a seam, is permanent if, during an attempt to remove it: (1) the label cannot be removed without the aid of tools or solvents; (2) if it is a paper label, it tears into pieces; or (3) such action damages the surface to which it is attached. [1] Your letter also cited language from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 49 CFR Part 541, Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards, in which the agency stated that the removal of a label must "create a 'footprint' (i.e., physical evidence that an affixation was originally present or required to be present) on that part." [2]

S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires that each CRS be permanently labeled with specified information, including information on proper use. A CRS may not protect a child in a crash if the CRS is not properly installed or the child is not properly secured. The label provides a constant reminder on how to correctly use the restraint. [3] However, a label cannot be effective if it does not remain affixed to the restraint or cannot be read. Label permanency is particularly important for subsequent owners of a restraint, who may not have access to the original instructions. Further, the model and manufacturer information must remain legible in order to identify a restraint that is the subject of a recall.

For a label to be permanent, it must remain affixed and legible under normal conditions for the life of the restraint to which it is attached. If a label used by your company were to meet the ASTM and agency criteria you outlined in your letter and listed above, and remain legible for the life of the restraint, we would deem it permanently attached.

Note two caveats, however. Labels should not be attached in a manner that invites their removal. In a June 26, 1997, letter to Mr. Strawn Cathcart, we stated that an air bag warning label could not be sewn on only one side into a seam. We determined that, by virtue of the location of the label (where an infants head would be located) and ease of detachment by cutting, tearing or pulling off a single row of stitching, the sewn-in label invited removal. As such, we concluded that the label was unlikely to stay attached during the lifetime of the child restraint in satisfaction of the permanently affixed requirement of FMVSS No. 213.

Second, the durability of labels is evaluated under NHTSAs Ease of Use CRS rating program. If a label is already peeling when the new CRS is removed from the packaging material at the test lab, the CRS will receive a lower score on the durability of its label than a CRS whose label is not peeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref.213
d.12/18/03





---

[1] See, ASTM F 833 00, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers, Sections 7.8.1 and 7.8.2.

[2] 50 Federal Register 19728, 19731; May 10, 1985.

[3] 44 FR 72131, 72316; December 13, 1979.

ID: nht80-1.20

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intends to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufactures. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.

You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasaki stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Research & Development Center

January 24, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 115 V.I.N. Requirements

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter requests your confirmation that Kawasaki's interpretation of, and action to be taken under, the requirements of 49 CFR 571.115 is correct.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) regulations promulgated by NHTSA at 49 CFR 571.115 (FMVSS 115) require vehicle manufacturers to assign to each motor vehicle a unique vehicle identification number, consisting of 17 digits (16 plus check). This VIN is to be used in defect recall and information retrieval efforts where accuracy will benefit the goal of motor vehicle safety. As required by 571.115 S4.3:

"The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such part." Standard 115 is silent as to the specific location of the VIN. However, 49 CFR 567, Certification, specifies content and location of the required label certifying compliance with applicable NHTSA requirements. In addressing content, @ 567.4 (g) (6) requires the label to contain the vehicle identification number, while @ 567.4 (e) specifies the location of the label on motorcycles. Finally, @ 567.4 (b) requires that "(t)he label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it."

Our current VIN appears on a non-removable, per @ 567 (b), label located on the portion of the main frame through which the steering assembly pivots, meeting the applicable location requirements of @ 567(e). To accommodate the 17 digit VIN of @ 571.115, we shall simply modify the labels with the new VIN format.

At the present time, we also stamp our model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label, although this stamped number is more difficult to see than the VIN as it does not contrast with its background. In order to facilitate our production control we wish to continue stamping this information into the frame, while placing the new VIN on the label in the location it currently occupies. We believe the visual prominence of the VIN and its recognizable format will prevent confusion of the VIN with our internal control system identifier.

We do not interpret Standard 115 as prohibiting placement of other forms of information in a location near the VIN. We ask if you concur with this interpretation.

We are in the process of designing our VIN system and integrating the VIN into our other information control systems. Your timely response to this letter would thus be greatly appreciated.

Please contact the undersigned if more information is required.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.;

Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager

CC: L. Yurikusa; N. Murakami

ID: nht95-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terrence S. Lockman -- Investigator, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Attorneys-at-Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM TERRENCE, S. LOCKMAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10855)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lockman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a "motor vehicle" and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manuf actured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that "At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway."

I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Couns el for General Law.

Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would h ave applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach.

We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act n1 defined a motor vehicle as "a v ehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. Th e literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for "road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning." It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone "at the time in question." Construction-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With r egard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear.

n1 In 1994, the Safety Act was recodified, without substantial change, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. The motor vehicle" definition is set forth in section 30102(a).

Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSS s. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1989 Versa Sweeper has "Indefinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour. . ." It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A V ersa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been.

You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that "street sweepers" -- that are motor vehicles -- are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), required open-bodie d light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: positioningSID_VenieroPizzagalli

Mr. Veniero Pizzagalli
Ferrari S.p.a.
Abetone Inferiore 4
Maranello MO Italy 41053 P




Dear Mr. Pizzagalli:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side Impact Protection, concerning the positioning of the Side Impact Dummy (SID) for purposes of conducting the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) test. You are having difficulty in placing the SID in a new sport seat that will be mounted in some of your future cars.

S7 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies positioning procedures for the SID. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 specify that a SID placed in a bucket seat at the drivers seating position and at the right front passenger seating position, respectively, is to be positioned such that "[t]he upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back. " The standard also specifies, at S7.2.1, that the H-point of the dummy is to coincide within inch in the vertical dimension and inch in the horizontal dimension of a point inch below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for the 50^th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (with certain exceptions). In addition, the standard specifies, at S6.4, that adjustable seat backs are placed in the manufacturers nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer. S6.4 states that, if the position is not specified, the seat back will be set at the first detent rearward of 25 from the vertical.

You state in your letter that, when the SID is placed in the sport seat, there is a space of 78 mm from the back of the dummy to the seat back. The middle of the dummys back cannot rest against the seat because the torso makes contact with the "wings" of the seatback. You suggest five different ways that the dummy could be positioned in the seat and ask if any of these are acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

NHTSA would not use the first four options you suggest. The first approach you suggest involves resting the dummys torso against the wings of the seat but not having the H-point of the dummy in the zone described by S7.2.1. NHTSA would need to

position the H-point as specified in S7.2.1. Your second option calls for forcing the dummy into the seat and against the seat back, possibly using tape or a harness to hold the dummy against the seat back. We would prefer not using artificial means to restrain the dummy in the test. The third option you suggest is to cut a portion of the dummys partial arms or remove them, thereby avoiding contact of the arms with the seat wings. We cannot modify the SID as you suggest other than through a rulemaking proceeding. Your fourth option involves reclining the seat back such that the dummys back is reclined at a 25 tilt angle. We would not use this fourth approach because the seat back angle will be greater than 25 degrees and the dummys back does not make contact with the seat back.

Your fifth approach appears usable. This approach involves tilting the seat back such that the dummys back contacts the seat back at the wings. We would consider the wings of the seat to be part of the seat back, so contact with the wings satisfies the provision that the dummy contact the seat back. The H-point of the dummy would be maintained in the permitted tolerance zone of S7.2.1. The seat back would be positioned as specified in S6.4. The dummys back angle will be less than 25 degrees, but the test procedures do not specify that the angle of the back must be 25 degrees.

I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:214
d.11/3/05

ID: nht90-4.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1990

FROM: Takahiro Maeda -- Assistant to the Vice President, Engineering Divison, Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.; Signature by Michael Schmitt

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-90 to T. Maeda from P.J. Rice (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The purpose of this correspondence is to obtain your interpretation of minimum "edge to edge" separation between the tail/stop lamp and turn signals pursuant to FMVSS 108 Table IV.

Tail/stop lamp design may feature a housing whereby the bulb reflector subassembly does not extend outward to the edge of the entire assembly. Can "edge to edge" be construed as the edge of the bulb reflector or is it necessarily the outer edge of the en tire tail/stop lamp assembly. Please refer to the attached illustration.

We thank you for your insight into this question.

Attached illustration. (Graphics omitted)