ID: nht95-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demons trate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Str atus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, w hich is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory te st protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 r econsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions o f unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Ind eed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustm ent, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler' s assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the locati on of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance te sting is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of o riginal attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initi ation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater th an the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determi nations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is base d upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages f ailed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests condu cted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definite ly ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when t he anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assur ance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.

ID: nht95-7.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1995

FROM: Kenneth N. Weinstein -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: Compliance of MY 1995 Cirrus/Stratus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Lewis H. Goldfarb to Kenneth Weinstein

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1995, which transmitted a memorandum containing Chrysler Corporation's legal position on whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may rely on a July 11, 1995 compliance test to demonstrate that model year 1995 Chrysler Cirrus and Dodge Stratus vehicles fail to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210.

In the July 10 test, NHTSA's contractor placed the pelvic body block several inches forward from the seat back. n1 In that test, and in subsequent tests conducted by Chrysler with the body block in that location, the rear seat anchorage in the Cirrus/Stratus failed before the 3000 pound test load set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 210 was reached. Chrysler has submitted a summary report describing a recent test in which the anchorage did not fail when the body block was positioned against the seat back, which is the position that Chrysler customarily uses when it tests its vehicles to ascertain whether they comply with Standard No. 210. It is Chrysler's position that since "neither the procedures specified in the standard nor the published laboratory test protocol specify the location of the body block," its test with the body block against the seat should be accepted by NHTSA as demonstrating compliance with Standard No. 210.

n1 Your memorandum states on several occasions that the body block in the NHTSA test was placed four inches in front of the seat back. This distance represents the post-test location of the body block. In fact, the post-test photographs reveal that the floor structure had been distorted during the test procedure, thus indicating that the body block was less than four inches from the seat back prior to the test.

The agency agrees that neither the standard itself nor the laboratory test procedure developed by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies a precise distance that the body block is to be placed in front of the seat back. However, rather than support Chrysler's argument, this fact demonstrates that the failure of the Cirrus anchorages to withstand the test loads in NHTSA's test reflects a noncompliance with the standard. In the preamble issued by the agency in connection with its 1991 reconsideration of several amendments to Standard No. 210, NHTSA reiterated its longstanding view of a manufacturer's compliance responsibilities under these circumstances (56 FR 63676, 63677; December 5, 1991):

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of the strength requirements in Standard No. 210, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the strength requirements were only to be measured with the safety belt or other vehicle features at certain adjustment positions. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the likelihood that an anchorage will fail in a crash. To serve this purpose, the anchorage must be capable of meeting the strength requirements with the safety belt and other vehicle features at any adjustment, since those features could be at any adjustment position during a crash.

The quoted statement, which was made in response to assertions by auto manufacturers that the test procedure was not sufficiently "objective" because certain test conditions were not sufficiently specified in the standard, demonstrates the fallacy of the contention in your memorandum (at pages 6-7) that the positioning of the body block in the July 10 test "introduc[es] a variable in the compliance test procedure that is not authorized by the NHTSA standard . . ." It also completely undermines Chrysler's assertion (at page 7) that the agency is "retroactively interpret[ing]" the standard. The industry was certainly "fairly informed" that "the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions."

NHTSA also disputes Chrysler's assertion (at page 4) that "the most natural and representative location for the body block" is against the seat back. To the contrary, that location is not consistent with any possible occupant use. Conversely, the location of the body block in the July 10 test conducted for NHTSA reflects the approximate belt geometry that would exist if a 5th percentile female occupied the seat. n2

n2 Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages to be installed at each designated seating position, which is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) in part as a "location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female." This is yet another indication that all anchorages should be strong enough to withstand the required test loads when occupied by a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female.

As reflected in the preamble to the 1990 amendments to Standard No. 210 (55 FR 17970; April 30, 1990) and the discussion of the petitions for reconsideration of those amendments (56 FR 63676; December 5, 1991), the agency has endeavored to have the test procedure be as representative as possible of real world crash conditions. See, e.g., 55 FR at 17976-77 (simultaneous testing of anchorages); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 1 (limits on substitute materials to "ensure that the loading imposed during compliance testing is a realistic simulation of actual anchorage loading"); 55 FR at 17980, Col. 3 (effort to assure that reduced body block width will not be "unrepresentative of persons likely to occupy the seating position . . ."); 56 FR at 63677, Col. 1 (use of original attachment hardware "to ensure that the load application onto the anchorage is as realistic as possible"); and 56 FR 63677, Col. 3 (requiring that test setups using replacement webbing "duplicate the geometry" of the original webbing at the initiation of the test "to protect vehicle manufacturers from the agency identifying apparent noncompliances based upon test conditions with unrealistic loading"). n3 n3 NHTSA recognizes that in some respects the test procedure for Standard No. 210 does not simulate real-world conditions. See 55 FR at 17972-73 (explaining why the load onset and load holding times in the standard are "orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding time periods observed in crashes").

Your memorandum contends that an interpretation of Standard No. 210 under which a vehicle could be found noncompliant on the basis of a test with the body block several inches in front of the seat back would render the standard not "objective," and thus inconsistent with 49 U.S.C. @ 30111(a), citing Chrysler Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 472 F.2d 659, 675-676 (6th Cir. 1972). However, that case merely prohibits NHTSA from establishing test procedures that are based on "subjective determinations:"

Objective . . . means that tests to determine compliance must be capable of producing identical results when test conditions are exactly duplicated, that they be decisively demonstrable by performing a rational test procedure, and that compliance is based upon the readings obtained from measuring instruments as opposed to the subjective opinions of human beings.

NHTSA's test procedure, as implemented by its contractor in the July 10 test, clearly satisfies each of these three criteria for objectivity. There can be no dispute that it produces "identical results," as demonstrated by the fact that the anchorages failed in tests performed by Chrysler using that procedure. The procedure is also "rational," in that it reflects a belt geometry that is found in the real world (as opposed to the belt geometry in the body block location favored by Chrysler). Finally, the anchorage failed in a test conducted in accordance with measurable readings, rather than any "subjective opinions of human beings."

Your memorandum states (at page 4) that Chrysler's review of prior NHTSA compliance tests suggests that "the agency has also customarily located the pelvic body block against the seat back during FMVSS 210 compliance tests." Our review of the tests conducted by the agency indicates that this statement is not correct. As I advised you approximately ten days ago, the distance of the body block from the seat is not a data point that is memorialized in the test reports. Therefore, OVSC personnel reviewed the test photos and/or films of all Standard No. 210 tests conducted by NHTSA contractors of MY 1990 and later vehicles in an attempt to ascertain the body block position in those tests. Of the 21 tests in which the body block position could be definitely ascertained, in all but one (a test of the front seat anchorage in a MY 1992 Geo Storm), the block was not flush against the seat back.

In accordance with its usual procedures, OVSC provided Chrysler with contemporaneous reports of the Standard No. 210 compliance tests that the agency performed on its vehicles. Photos of the two Standard Nos. 207/210 tests conducted on Chrysler vehicles during the past five years (on the 1994 Dodge Caravan and the 1994 Dodge Ram Van) reveal that the test body block was placed at some distance from the seat back. Thus, Chrysler cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised by the body block location used by the contractor in the July 10 test.

In sum, although Chrysler has submitted a test that indicates that the anchorages in the 1995 Cirrus did not fail when the body block was placed against the seat back, such a result is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Standard No. 210 when the anchorage fails in tests at other body block positions, and particularly where those positions are more reflective of real world belt geometry.

Under the circumstances, if Chrysler does not promptly notify the agency that it has decided that a noncompliance exists and conduct a notification and remedy campaign in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance would be justified in issuing an initial decision pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(a) that such a noncompliance exists. Please advise me or Michael Brownlee of your intentions immediately.

ID: nht87-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: BARRY NUDD -- SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 07/14/88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT; STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Erika Jones,

Atwood Mobile Products is a manufacturer of seat adjusters serving the recreational and heavy duty vehicle markets. A majority of our customers use our product in an assembly consisting of a bucket seat mounted to a pair of seat adjusters which are in t urn attached to a pedestal that elevates the seat above the floor of a vehicle and generally incorporates the seat belt anchorages. The inclusion of the pedestal in the seating systems causes considerable confusion with some customers when testing to St andard No. 207. The main issue is whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat and p edestal.

A letter from the Chief Counsel of NHTSA to Mack Trucks Inc. dated July 14, 1983 (copy enclosed) states [a combined test procedure that first tests the seat adjuster for its ability to stay in the adjusted position when subject to a force of 20 times the upper seat and adjuster weight and then subjects the entire seat assembly (seat, adjusters and pedestal) to a 20 g force as anchored to the vehicle structure] establishes due care in testing to FMVSS Standard No. 207.

We would conclude from this opinion that the first portion of the procedure outlined above, establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207 S4.2. (The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat st ructure from the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.)

We request your interpretation with regard to the test procedures required by Standard No. 207 for seat assemblies consisting of a trimmed seat mounted on seat adjusters which are in turn mounted to a pedestal which incorporate seat belt anchorages (S4.2 (c)), specifically as outlined in the two part test set forth (in figures 1 & 2).

Our questions are specific to the Mack Truck letter with the addition of the seat belt loads.

Question No. 1: Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?

Figure 1 tests the ability of the seat adjusters to remain in their adjusted position when subjected to 20 times the weight of all seat components mounted above the adjusters plus the Standard No. 210 belt load.

Question No. 2: Can the seat adjuster, having passed figure 1 loads be locked for the second part of the test as in figure 2.

The second portion of the test (figure 2) established the compliance of the seat structure from the bottom of the seat adjusters down to the connection of the pedestal to the floor. Because the forces in figure 2 do not accurately reflect the forces act ually imposed on the seat adjusters in an actual crash, the adjusters can be welded or otherwise locked together (the adjusters having been tested in figure 1, see paragraph three of the Mack Truck letter" ... the adjusters and upper seat section would n ever experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash.") while the rest of the seat assembly is tested to the requirements.

Question No. 3: Does the two part test procedure shown in figures 1 & 2 establish due care in meeting Standard 207 when applied to an upper seat and adjusters mounted on a pedestal assembly which incorporates seat belt anchorages?

There are several other questions of a more general nature that arise when applying Standard No. 207 to pedestal mounted seats as shown in figure 1.

Question No. 4: Can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of the seat as more accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seats ce nter of gravity?

Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 illustrates a bracing system apparently intended to insure that the force applied to the seat back remains in the horizontal plane of the center of gravity of the seat. If the seat frame were excessively flexible and t he braces not used, the deformation of the seat frame would raise the load application line above the plane of the center of gravity of the seat resulting in a larger moment being placed on the seat attachment. This condition is especially evident in buc ket seats mounted on pedestals which incorporate seat belt anchorages.

A simultaneous application of a type I seat belt load and a 20 times seat weight force causes deflections to the entire seat system resulting in the seat force acting significantly above the plane of the seat center of gravity. This condition can consid erably overstate the moment load on seat attachments that would occur in an actual 20g impact. To more accurately simulate a 20g impact load (which appears to be the intent

of the standard) the seat force should be applied at the seat center of gravity not at the seat back through the plane of the center of gravity. The current technique as outlined in S5.1.1 applied to pedestal mounted bucket seats is contrary to elem entary mechanical principles when significant deflections take place.

Another question related to testing for compliance to Standard No. 207 concerns paragraph S4.2(c), the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt loads and the 20 times seat weight load.

Question No. 5: Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the se at assembly to the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No 207?

On installations as previously described and shown in the attached figures, the seat belt anchorages are a part of the seat pedestal on which the seat adjusters and seat are fastened. If a bucket seat were to be mounted on the floor, and the seat belt a nchorages mounted to the floor with separate attachments, the seat and adjusters would not be subject to paragraph S4.2(c). Because the seat pedestal seems to be included in the definition of a seat, the pedestal mounted belt anchorages require the seat to be subjected to paragraph S4.2(c) loads with the seat remaining in its adjusted position during application of each force specified (S4.2). It can be shown that identical bucket seats can be mounted on a floor of a vehicle or on a pedestal and their respective belt anchorages can be located in identical positions, in relation to the seat adjusters.

A typical seat pedestal installation involve the seat belts wrapping around the sides of the seat. As the belts are loaded, considerable transfer of force occurs from the forward stretch of the belts to the seat frame and hence into the seat adjusters. Accepted lab techniques for applying the seat belt load include using steel cables to simulate belts and untrimmed or bare seat frames for applications of loads. The steel cable can bite into a bare seat frame and transfer a large load into a seat adju ster. This force is variable and subject to extremes when testing techniques vary within the limits set forth in Standard Nos. 207 and 210. In case of an identical bucket seat and adjusters mounted on the floor of a vehicle with the floor mounted belt anchorages located in the same position relative to the seat, this force is totally ignored (S4.2(c) is not required).

It is certainly essential that the 20 times seat weight load be applied simultaneously with the Standard No. 210 seat belt load to verify compliance with general requirements of S1 that the chance of failure of the seat attachment assemblies and their in stallation by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact be minimized. However, if the seat adjusters of an identical seat installation mounted on the floor are not subjected to loads induced by seat belts wrapping around the seat frame, a pede stal

mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachment assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207. Of course if the seat belt anchorages were on the s eat frame itself (above the seat adjusters) then the seat adjusters would definitely have to remain in their adjusted position when subject to the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage load and the 20 times seat weight load.

Respectfully Submitted,

TEST PROCEDURE PART 571 S207 SECTION S4.2

ALL LOADS TO BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY; FIGURE 1 AND 2

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

ID: aiam1136

Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to the March 15 resolution of the National Motor Vehicl Safety Advisory Council urging removal of the legal barriers to the introduction of passive restraint systems, I can report that the Department has taken a major step in the direction the Council urges. The proposed test dummy regulation, published April 2, is intended to permit manufacturers to produce vehicles with passive restraint systems under either of the passive options available before passive restraints become mandatory. Upon adoption of the proposed regulation and of the corresponding amendment to Standard 208, the first barrier addressed in the Council's resolution will be removed.; The Council's second concern is with the seat belt installation laws o the States. It would be unfortunate if these laws interfere with the evaluation of fully passive restraint systems. The department will take such steps as seem advisable to remove any legal obstruction to the manufacture and use of vehicles with fully passive systems. We expect to announce our position on this point shortly.; Sincerely,(sic)

ID: nht89-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: JOHN G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 217 Your Reference No. NEF-31RSh CIR 2996

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/26/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN G. SIMS -- CHMPION MOTOR COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

This is in response to your September 8, 1989 letter to Jim Nolin of our Imlay City, MI manufacturing division and a series of telephone conversations we have had with Roy Shannon of your office. This also serves as our defect and noncompliance repor t and proposed notification, in accordance with Parts 573 and 577.

After carefully reviewing our bus design, we have determined that we have not been properly labeling the passenger side exit door on our cut-away chassis buses as an "emergency exit" and we have not always been providing the necessary operating instru ctions for use of that exit. Our vehicle design has been based on the assumption that the door which is normally the main passenger entrance way or the passenger side OEM cab door would also serve as part of the required emergency exit requirements, how ever, we failed to mark the door accordingly. We, therefore, intend to voluntarily recall all affected buses in the manner described below.

The side mounted main passenger entrance door for our cut-away buses are one of six different designs, each of which provides over 536 sq. in. of exit area and which when properly marked, can serve as an emergency exit or is used in conjunction with a nother side door that can be the emergency exit. See enclosure 1. We have reviewed your charts 1 and 2 and we are in agreement with them except for chart 2 where you did not permit credit for 536 sq. in. provided by door type A (extended cab front door ) on the right side. If that credit is given then each of the identified "failures" would become "passes". We believe that if properly marked, the door will meet the requirements of "emergency exit" and therefore the credit should be given.

All cut-away buses built since 1984 and not accounted for on your charts have similar egress characteristics, specifically:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit door or window with an area of at least 536 sq. in., or an emergency exit roof hatch with approximately 400 sq. in.

3) A left (driver's) side emergency exit front OEM cab door with greater than 536 sq. in.

4) A main passenger entrance/exit door with a minimum 536 sq. in. area, provided by one of the type doors described in enclosure 1. When the main passenger entrance/exit door is a rear door (designated C on enclosure 1) or a passenger side bi-fold do or in the body side (B), a OEM cab door is always provided.

Also, some buses had optional additional emergency exit windows installed at the customer's request, thereby providing at least two on each side of the bus, each with greater than 536 sq. in. opening.

The maximum seating capacity of any of these buses is 30 passengers so they will all meet the emergency exit area requirements when a passenger side door is treated as an emergency exit. Currently, all main passenger exit side doors are marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" and none of the doors are provided with operating instructions except the rear door and the curved side door.

In addition to our cut-away buses, Champion has developed two new rail chassis buses: the "CTS/Challenger" floor plans with seating capacities ranging from 20 to 32 passengers, and the "CTS-Star" with capacity ranging from 31 to 38 passengers (see att ached brochures). The buses have the following egress characteristics:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit window or roof escapt hatch with an area of at least 536 sq. in. for the window or 400 sq. in. for the hatch.

3) The CTS-Star has an additional emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in.

on each side of the bus towards the front of the bus.

4) Each bus has a main passenger entrance way which is marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit".

Based on the above analysis, it appears that we will need to conduct two separate recalls of buses. The first will be to recall all applicable cut-away buses in order to identify a passenger side door as an "emergency exit". That will involve provid ing a decal for the appropriate door which states "EMERGENCY EXIT", and a decal for each operating mechanism which will be placed on the door within six inches of the operating mechanism, except for the curved side door which already has operating instru ctions.

We have produced approximately 3,900 cut-away buses, of which we estimate approximately 900 do not need to be included in the recall because they were either equipped with optional added emergency exit windows or had 20 or fewer designated seating pos itions. We will prepare a list of each of the applicable cut-away buses and mail a letter and decals, to each owner of record, based on the letters a, b, and c given in enclosure 2.

The second recall will be for all CTS/Challenger buses that did not have optional additional emergency exit side windows in order to add additional emergency exits at both front sides. There are approximately 50 such buses and we will provide each ow ner of record a latter similar to that given in enclosure 3.

Two other issues raised in NHTSA's May 12, 1988 letter do not require any corrective action. The allegation that the driver door was not labeled with the words "emergency exit" is not correct. The label was located on the stanchion immediately behin d the driver's seat. It is our opinion that S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217 only requires that operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no logical basis for tying in the location of "emergency exit" marking to the operating mechanisms.

c) The operating mechanisms are often located below shoulder level of seated passengers where the visibility of an "emergency exit" sign would be substantially reduced.

d) The more stringent (and clearer) requirement for school buses in S5.5.3 clearly permits separation

of the emergency exit sign and the operating instructions.

e) NHTSA's contractor called the marking "confusing" rather than in violation of the standard (Report No. 217-MSE-87-11-TR7122-11).

f) In NHTSA's 8/24/88 letter, NEF-31MPa, CIR 2996, our initial offer to relocate the emergency exit sign for clarification reasons was accepted by NHTSA as fully adequate even though the relocation would not move the sign to within 6 inches of the ope rating mechanism. Even though NHTSA now states that that letter was in error, the letter still indicates that some staff agreed with our position.

g) IN NHTSA's 6/12/84 letter, NEF-31RSh, CIR 2678.1, we were asked to supply details of "a) Location of each emergency exit identification. b) Operating instructions of the release mechanisms for the emergency exits and the distances of these instruc tions from the release mechanisms." It is plain from the way the question was worded that NHTSA considered that the required location of the emergency exit identification was separate from the location of the operating instructions and that only the latt er had to be within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms.

The other issue raised in the 5/12/88 letter was if the operating instructions for the side window emergency exits were legible to occupants standing in the aisle. However, it is our opinion that the legibility requirement of S5.5.2 applies only to t he "emergency exit" marking and not to the operating instructions. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no practical reason to require the operating instructions to be legible until a person is about one arm's length away from the mechanisms.

c) The level of performance anticipated by the standard does not require the operating instructions to be visible even to someone in the adjacent seat, inasmuch as it is is permissible to place a sign that refers an occupant of the adjacent seat to th e operating instructions that may be located in the seat ahead.

d) Herr International, Inc., a major industry supplier of windows discussed this issue with Jeff Jiuseppe on October 23, 1989. Herr specifically stated the position that ". . . the legibility requirements of paragraph 5.5.2 require and apply to anoth er (other than operating instructions) label that identifies the emergency exit." Herr has reported to us that Jiuseppe agreed with that position along with Robert Kraus' concurrence.

Because of the above analysis, it is not our intention to include these two issues in the recalls we intend to initiate.

If further information is needed, please contact me. We will be prepared to send out our mailings on the recall upon approval from your office. The recall of the cut-away buses will be completed upon the mailing, and we will make appropriate reports to you on the progress of our repairs of the Challenger buses, as is required under the regulation.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Governmental Affairs CHAMPION DOOR DESIGNS Door Door Operating Operational Designation Type Location Mechanism Instructions A Extended Cab OEM Door Pull handle Cab Handle and push door B Bi-fold Body None * C Rear Body RV Lock ** E Curved Side Body RV Lock *** F Single Leaf Cab Cleveland Pull handle Door Operator and push door G Bi-fold Cab Cleveland " Door Operator H Passenger- Cab OEM Door Pull handle side OEM Handle and Push door * Bi-fold door in body cannot be used for emergency exit because the operating mechanism is not located within the area required by the standard. However, whenever this door is used, a passenger side OEM cab door (H) is also used which can be made an emergency exit.

** Rear door, when used, has already been properly designated as emergency exit. Rear door used in addition to side passenger entrance/exit door (A,B,E,F, or G) and/or OEM cab door (H) which will be designated emergency exit.

*** Operating instructions already provided for RV locks.

Enclosure 1

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Main Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirments for emergency exit capacity on buses. Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requriements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operatin g mechanisms of those doors were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instr uctions for the operating mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of where the mechanism connects to that door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter a

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For OEM Cab Doors

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer: This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, one of the passenger side doors was not marked "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operating mec hanisms for that door were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside panel of the OEM cab door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instructions for the opera ting mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of the door handle.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter b

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Curved Side Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. This may have some negative effect on a passenger' s ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter c

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Challenger Bus Owners

Re: (Champion Serial No. )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion Motor Coach, Inc. has determined that certain CTS/Challenger buses, including the one referenced above, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which requires that a certain amount o f area for emergency exit be provided for each designated seating position on the bus. Champion's design was two emergency exit windows located on each side of the bus but several of the CTS/Challenger buses were erroneously produced with only one such window per side. The reduced emergency exit capacity may restrict passenger's ability to evacuate the bus in the case of emergency.

Champion will remedy this noncompliance without charge to you by replacing front windows on both sides of the bus with emergency exit windows, and provide the proper markings and operating mechanisms. This work will only take a few hours of time and will not affect the appearance or utility of the vehicles.

Please contact your selling dealer to arrange for the work to be done. The dealer should already be stocked with the necessary parts, or if not, we will provide him with those parts within 10 days of his request.

If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 3

ID: nht78-3.31

DATE: 06/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 4, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to your vehicles.

First you ask whether a driver is considered a passenger for computation of designated seating positions and whether he is included in the computation of vehicle capacity. The term "passenger" is not used in the definition of designated seating position in Part 571.3 of our regulations. Designated seating position uses the term "person" in its definition, and a driver is considered a person for both the computation of designated seating positions and vehicle capacity.

On a related point concerning designated seating positions, you ask whether wheelchairs are considered designated seating positions or auxiliary seats. Wheelchair seating positions are not designated seating positions and, therefore, are not required to comply with standards that apply to designated seating positions. However, wheelchair positions are counted in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of the type classification of a vehicle.

In your second question, you ask what is the proper vehicle classification for a standard design school bus that carries fewer than 10 persons. This type of vehicle would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, all fixed seating positions would be required to have seat belts. Wheelchair positions, since they are not designated seating positions, are not required to have seat belts.

In a question pertaining to the above-mentioned vehicle type, you ask whether it can be classified as a school bus if it complies with all of the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is no. This vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle it must be certified in compliance with all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You are not prohibited from marking the vehicle as a school bus, however, with school bus paint, lighting, and lettering. Such markings do not change the vehicle type from multipurpose passenger vehicle to school bus.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

As a followup to a conversation by Bill Milby and Roger Tilton on March 29, 1978, I am writing to seek clarification of several terms and their application. The terms are as defined in Part 571-1 under Definitions.

1. With respect to "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position":

a. Is the driver included as a passenger? Must he be counted for vehicle capacity?

b. Are wheelchairs considered auxiliary seats or must they be included as designated seating positions for certification?

2. What is the proper vehicle classification for a vehicle of "traditional" school bus styling with seating capacity for less than ten persons?

3. If proper classification for item 2 is "multipurpose passenger vehicle", must fixed seating positions and wheel chair positions have seat belts?

4. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons, may it be classified as a "school bus" provided it meets all FMVSS applicable to schoolbuses?

5. If the vehicle has seating capacity for less than 10 persons and is classified as a MPV, can it be painted yellow and black and carry children to and from school and be identified with the letters "SCHOOL BUS"?

I am looking forward to your interpretation.

Thank you.

R. L. DuMond Staff Engineer

ID: 7293

Mr. Timber Dick
Safeline Children's Products Co.
5335 W. 48th, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80212

Dear Mr. Dick:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds.

Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds.

You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back.

At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you.

S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: "... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs." S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: "...[R]otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in [the standard's dynamic] tests...."

Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended "as far as possible" in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether "forward" is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting "forward" as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year-old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude "forward" as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child.

Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter.

Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9-month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9- month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's "Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade," July 1991.

I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: "In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, [in a dynamic test] ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top- most points on the child restraint system surfaces ...." It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:8/18/92

ID: nht92-4.33

DATE: August 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timber Dick -- Safeline Children's Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from Timber Dick to Deirdre Fujita (OCC 7293)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds.

Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds.

You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back.

At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you.

S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: "... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs." S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: "...(R)otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in (the standard's dynamic) tests...."

Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended "as far as possible" in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether "forward" is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting "forward" as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year-old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of

language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude "forward" as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child.

Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter.

Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9-month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9-month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's "Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade," July 1991.

I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: "In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, (in a dynamic test) ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces ...." It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-3.33

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Fukuhara -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Sakai -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Watanabe -- ITCA-Det.; ISZA -- Washington, D.C.

TITLE: Subject: Rear Seat Requirements - Side Impact (FMVSS 214)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding the applicability of the rear seat requirements FMVSS 214, "Side door strength" (55 FR 45722) published on October 30, 1990, in the context of Isuzu 2-door Coupe.

The Standard specifies ". . . the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger-cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures."

The point of our questions is whether Isuzu 2-door Coupe qualifies for this exemption.

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. This condition is shown in photographs 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1 attached here.

This condition, however, obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, "The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back." In Isuzu 2-door Coupe, the dummy's upper torso must be tilted away from the seat back while adjusting its head forward as the Agency says in the preamble to this Standard (55 FR 45737, first column).

Therefore, our interpretation is that said Coupe cannot "accommodate" the SID dummy and thus the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it.

We would appreciate receiving your view regarding this interpretation and understanding. Your prompt response would be most helpful.

Attachments

Figure 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (text and graphics omitted);

Photograph 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph 2 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph -- 3 SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.38

DATE: 01/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 24 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Gerth:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether a manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants.

We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with your letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.

From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed design would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.

The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design that will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Docket Section Room 5108 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Standard 210; Seat Belt Anchorages - Request for Interpretation

Gentlemen:

Statistics released by the NHTSA on December 15, 1978, again reflect the very low seat belt usage rate in the United States inspite of their known effectiveness. Earlier surveys have shown that approximately 50% of persons refusing to wear seat belts do so because they perceive them to be uncomfortable and inconvenient to manipulate and wear.

In an effort to overcame this wide spread public perception, our parent company, Daimler-Benz A.G., has devised 2 manually adjustable anchorage for the shoulder portion of the 3-point safety belt. The anchorage is adjustable over a range of 90mm and is designed to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants ranging from the 5 percentile female to 95 percentile male.

Daimler-Benz has tested this device and has concluded that it conforms to the strength requirements of standard 210. However, it is not entirely clear if such a device per se is permissable under the Standard.

We are including with this communication a written description of the device, and several drawings and photographs. We request your review of the material and advice if the manually adjustable seat belt anchorage is, in fact, permissable under Standard 210. If additional information is requested, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

In closing we would like to draw your attention to enclosures 1, 2 and 4 which we consider to contain proprietary information which would be damaging to our competitive interests if released to the public. We request that these enclosures be withheld from the public docket in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(4).

Yours truly,

Enclosures

"Proprietary"

We request that the information designated 'proprietary' in the enclosure be treated by the agency as confidential and be exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (4) because such information is a trade secret and contains privileged commercial information. Knowledge of this information to competitors could result in significant competitive damage to Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

Enclosure 3

Description

The upper safety belt anchorage consists of an "M" shaped base plate (1) which is attached with screws at points (6) and (7), and tabs at point (5) to the "B" pillar, and which holds the adjustable retaining plate (2) in place on which the mounting nut (4) for the belt sash is spot welded, and which also holds the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3).

The base plate (1) has, depending on the adjustment travel of the seat belt sash (8), an elongated hole (1a) in the middle to permit a screw (9) to pass through and fasten the belt sash to the retaining plate (2).

Within the elongated hole (1a) three indexes (10),(11), & (12) are arranged in pairs to receive the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3) and hold the retaining plate (2) in place. Because of the way the retaining plate (2), and the arresting device (3) are configured, it is assured that when loaded the arresting device (3) will lock into place as there is no arm between the projection (13), and the indexes (10),(11), & (12) which could cause a moment to be exerted on the arresting device (3). An additional pre-condition for the uninterrupted functioning of the arresting device (3) is that the restraining plate (2) to which the arresting device (3) is attached, does not lift off the base plate when loaded. This is achieved with the threaded (9) connection to the retaining plate (2), and by means of two tabs (2a) which, when loaded, rest against the B-pillar. This assures that the arresting mechanism (3) is loaded only by shear forces.

PS:Wkr 11/9/78