ID: nht76-5.10

DATE: 08/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's July 7, 1976, request for revision of the requirements of S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, so that passage of the described parallelepiped through the emergency door can be effected with its lower surface several inches above the bus floor. Section 5.4.2.1 requires that the 45-inch dimension of the parallelepiped remain vertical, that the 24-inch dimension remain parallel to the opening, and that the lower surface remain in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

The three specifications for passage of the parallelepiped through the opening are intended to describe, for the benefit of the manufacturer, how the NHTSA will conduct its compliance testing. These specifications do not represent a requirement that the opening be constructed without a threshold or corner obstructions. As the agency interprets this requirement, minor obstructions that do not necessitate passage of the parallelepiped through the opening more than 1 inch above the floor are not prohibited by this requirement. Thus, in the case you describe, the NHTSA would move the parallelepiped through the opening with its sides vertical and the rear surface parallel to the rear surface of the bus, just above the obstructions, but no more than 1 inch above the bus floor.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

July 7, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 - School Bus Emergency Exit Requirements (Docket No. 75-3; Notice 2 - Effective October 26, 1976)

Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard require that the Parallelepiped should be entered into the emergency door opening, keeping the 24 inch dimension (the base of the Parallelepiped) parallel to the opening and the lower surface (the base of the Parallelepiped) in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.

By reducing the seating capacity of the bus, by installing one (1) 26 inch and one (1) 39 inch seat in the rearmost row, the requirement for the 24 inch wide Parallelepiped can be met in Superior School Buses, shown on Drawing No. 4100429, attached. However, also as shown on the attached drawing, the requirement for keeping the lower surface in contact with the floor cannot be met in Superior Buses.

The problem as can be seen on the attached drawing is two-fold, and as follows:

Section B-B, depicts a riser that as installed functions as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement.

View Circle A, depicts a 2.81 inch radius that exists in the two lower corners of the emergency door opening. These radii also serves as a part of the emergency door weather sealing arrangement. Most importantly, these 2.81 inch radii are a part of the emergency door sash and are a part of a major structural member of the bus rearend assembly.

If the Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation are required to comply with the exact requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above referenced safety standard, and a major reengineering, redesign and retooling program would be required, in addition, the newly configured rearend assembly would need to be subjected to an extensive real-world evaluation to establish its' structural reliability.

The Superior Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that the requirements of Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1 of the above reference safety standard be rewritten to permit the existence of minor functional components in the emergency door openings such as the "riser" and minor radii as depicted on the attached drawing. It is the opinion of the Super Divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation that permitted existence of such minor functional components would in no manner obstruct the effective egress of children in schoolbus crash situation.

Your concurrence in the above matter would be appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: 00563Vancamp_positioningbelt

Sgt. Sharron VanCampen
Commander, School Bus Inspection Unit
Michigan State Police, Motor Carrier Division
4000 Collins Road
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Sgt. VanCampen:

This responds to your e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and telephone call to Deirdre Fujita of my staff, concerning the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards^[1] to the installation of "positioning belts" on large (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) school buses. We apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that positioning belts are seat belts certified as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 that are sold for use on a school bus seat to transport children with special needs that require additional restraint to ensure that the children remain seated. According to your e-mail, some school bus operators are attaching the belts by looping them around school bus seat structures that were not manufactured for seat belt installation.

You ask several questions about the positioning devices, which are answered below. I note that we have also received a related letter from Mr. Howard Dashney, Executive Director of the Michigan Association for Pupil Transportation (MAPT), asking about MAPTs members use of the positioning devices on school buses. Because your inquiries ask about the same situation, we will respond to you both simultaneously and will copy you both on our responses.

Your questions are answered below.

Question: "These devices are being marketed for pelvic restraint and as such, are they required to meet all of the requirements in FMVSS No. 209? If these devices are considered lap belts per FMVSS No. 209, are they required to meet the attachment hardware requirement at S5.2(c) and thus use a bolt to attach to the seat belt loading bar on a seat belt-ready school bus seat?"

Answer: According to available information, the belts are in fact certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. Presumably, because they are certified as meeting that standard, the belts were sold with the attachment hardware required by FMVSS No. 209. It appears that your underlying question is whether the belts are required by FMVSS No. 209 to be attached in a specific way, including by use of a bolt, etc. As explained below, generally the answer is no.

The installation of the belts on used vehicles is not directly regulated by an FMVSS. Safety standards that apply to installation of seat belts, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, are "vehicle standards" applying only to new vehicles. The general rule is that installation of aftermarket equipment is not subject to the requirements set forth in vehicle standards.

However, there is another statutory provision that might affect MAPT members installation of the belts. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

School buses are certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards. Seats on a large school bus are certified to the "compartmentalization" requirements of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The compartmentalization concept calls for sturdy yet yielding well-padded high-backed seats to protect passengers. With respect to Standard No. 222, the compartmentalized school bus seats are elements of design installed in compliance with this safety standard. The "make inoperative" prohibition requires any entity listed in 30122 to ensure that the school buses will continue to afford the occupant protection required by Standard No. 222, even with the positioning belts attached to them.

Note, however, that the make inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to a situation where MAPT members installed the belts in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Nonetheless, NHTSA urges owners to exercise care in modifying their vehicles so as not to degrade the safety provided by the original systems. Further, States have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including the manner in which school buses are modified and operated.

Question: "If this is correct [and the answer to question number 2 is yes], is it appropriate for Michigan to require that seat belt anchorages in school buses over 10,000 gross vehicle weight meet the strength requirements found in FMVSS No. 210?"

Answer: The answer to the preceding question is that seat belts are not required by our standards to be installed on used vehicles pursuant to the lap belt installation instructions accompanying the belts. However, because the FMVSSs do not specify requirements for seat belts for passengers on large school buses, each State has the authority to specify requirements for the installation of the belts. The belts act similarly to lap belts in a crash. NHTSA recommends that lap belts should be installed only on "seat belt ready" school bus seats (seats that are able to withstand the forces generated in a crash), and also in a manner that meets FMVSS No. 210.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#209#213





---




[1] As explained by Ms. Fujita, we can only interpret our requirements and cannot interpret the requirements of other Federal agencies. As to compliance with Head Start or other Federal regulations, you should direct your question to the agency involved.

ID: 19283.ogm

E. Pluribus Law Firm, P.C.
P.O. Box 326
Leland, MI 49654

Re: FMVSS 209

Dear Sir or Madam:

This responds to your letter concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your questions relate to provisions addressing the performance of seat belt buckles under this safety standard. Specifically, you ask several questions about what you describe as the "partial engagement" provisions of Standard No. 209. Your seven questions, and our response to each question are provided below.

l. How does NHTSA define "partial engagement" under FMVSS 209 3.21 & 5.27?

ANSWER: We note that Standard No. 209 does not contain either section you refer to in your question. However, S4.3(g) and S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209, respectively, each use the phrase "partial engagement" in describing the minimum performance criteria and the test procedures for assessing buckle performance. Under S4.3, a seat belt buckle with a metal-to-metal buckle must separate when subjected to a force of not more than 22 newtons 95 pounds) or less when in any position of "partial engagement." The meaning of the phrase "partial engagement" is not defined in Standard No. 209 and has not been previously interpreted by NHTSA insofar as it applies to this particular standard. We believe that "partial engagement" is that position where the male end and the female receptacle of a seat belt assembly is neither fully engaged and latched nor fully disengaged. Therefore, the two components are partially engaged when the male end is inserted into the receptacle but has not been inserted to the point where the latching mechanism has closed.

2. Is "partial engagement" one of the phenomena which NHTSA is concerned about in the language of FMVSS 209 3.5 - "Buckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release"?

ANSWER: No. As used in this Standard, "partial engagement" is not a phenomenon but is a state in which the buckle assembly is placed to test the resistance of the assembly to separation or disengagement when it is not in the fully latched position. The requirement in S4.1(e) that buckle release mechanisms be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release is intended to provide some assurance that buckles will not be inadvertently released once in the latched position.

3. Is it correct that FMVSS 209 3.21 preclude [sic] certification of any buckle which requires more that 5 lbs. to release from any position of partial engagement? Specific reference should be made to the language "a metal buckle shall separate when in any position of partial engagement by a force of not more than 5 pounds (2.3 Kg)" in interpreting this provision.

ANSWER: Again, we note that Standard No. 209 does not contain the section cited in your question. However, the language cited in your question is found in S4.3(g) of the Standard. If this is, in fact, that section that your question refers to, the answer is yes.

4. Assuming no testing of maximum engagement is required under FMVSS 209 5.27 if it is determined that partial engagement is not possible "by means of a technique representative of actual use", how important is it to conduct a fair and adequate test of "representative use?"

ANSWER: In answering this question, we assume that you are referring to S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209. In certifying compliance with a standard, manufacturers must make efforts to ensure that they have exercised due care. If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem. In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards.

5. What is a fair and adequate test to determine "whether partial engagement is possible by means of a technique representative of actual use" under FMVSS 209 5.27?

ANSWER: This agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

6. Would the NHTSA interpretations provided above be the same in 1988-91 as they have been provided in response to the request for interpretation herein.

ANSWER: Yes.

7. If the response to request No. 6 is negative, please identify all interpretations which would have been different and the underlying basis for the change in interpretation between 1988-91 and present.

ANSWER: See the answer to item 6 above.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.7/8/2000

ID: nht90-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 2, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: DENNIS D. FURR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-28-89 TO DIANE STEED, NHTSA, FROM DENNIS D. FURR ATTACHED.

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and to your telephone conversations with this agency concerning school bus safety. You intended your letter to function as a "petition" to amend S4.1 of Federal motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.2229), and Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR S1204.4).

Ms. Fujita of my staff has discussed with you our difficulty in understanding your petition. With respect to Standard 222, your letter did not clearly set forth the facts which you believe establish that an order is necessary (as specified for petitions under 49 CFR S552.4(c)); nor did you set forth the substance of the order which you think NHTSA should issue (S552.4(d)). (Ms. Fujita has since sent you a copy of these requirements.) This information helps NHTSA adequately understand and evaluate pet itions. In the absence of that information, we have attempted to surmise the essence of your request, based on your past correspondence with NHTSA. Please advise us whether our surmise is correct. To avoid the possibility of our acting on the basis of incorrect assumptions, we will take no further action on this matter until we hear from you.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 states:

The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

In your past correspondence, you've expressed concerns about overloaded school buses and the manner in which manufacturers designate the passenger capacity of a school bus. you've suggested that S4.1 of Standard 222 contributes to the overloading of scho ol buses, in that it permits manufacturers to designate a 39-inch bench seat as having three, and not two, seating positions. In our responses, we explained that a 39-inch bench seat is calculated as having three seating positions under S4.1 to ensure t hat the seat will be constructed to provide adequate crash protection when occupied by the maximum number of passengers. it is not Standard 222's intention to require or suggest that the seat should be occupied by the maximum number of passengers, althou gh a 39-inch bench seat is capable of carrying three passengers with a hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female. We also said that the number of seating positions derived from S4.1 is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all sizes of occupants. A bus may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, but only 43

high school students. (Examples of letters regarding your concerns are NHTSA's letters to Senator Donald Riegle (July 5, 1985), and Congressman Howard Wolpe (February 23, 1989).) We would like to emphasize that Standard 222 does not address the capacity of a school bus. The decision regarding how many passengers should be carried by a school bus is made by the States.

NHTSA recommends in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 that States should plan school bus routes such that each occupant is provided a seat and to eliminate standees. However, the guideline is non-binding on the States, and NHTSA does not have the autho rity to regulate how school buses are loaded.

In your current letter, you imply that manufacturers are improperly calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. Information available to NHTSA indicates that manufacturers are calculating the positions in accordance with S4.1.

Since you seem dissatisfied with S4.1, you appear to believe that S4.1 should be changed. We believe you wish to suggest that S4.1's calculation of seating positions should be based on the hip width of a high school student. Under your suggestion, a 39- inch bench seat would be considered to have two seating positions, and not three (as presently calculated). You apparently believe that calculating three positions on a 39-inch seat is one position too many, in that "one third of the school buses' rated capacity (is placed) outside of the head, and leg impact zones' of compartmentalization. We would like to point out that your suggested change would have the effect of reducing the applied forces and energy for testing the seat, thereby creating a poten tially less safe environment for passengers. You also seem to believe that designating three positions encourages school bus operators to overload the seat. We understand you to suggest that S4.1 be amended such that the number of positions on a bench seat is calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded down to the nearest whole number.

As I stated earlier in this letter, the preceding discussion constitutes our understanding of your "petition" on Standard 222. Before we consider your petition further, you must inform us if we are correct in our understanding.

With respect to Guideline 17, there is no available formal procedure under which interested persons may petition for a change to NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guidelines. However, the agency is preparing to issue a Federal Register notice requesting pu blic comments on proposed revisions to the guideline. We will forward a copy of your letter to the appropriate docket once the notice is published.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht74-3.39

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rozner and Yorty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on seat belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)).

The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of seat belts and reclining seats.

Yours truly,

ROZNER AND YORTY

March 26, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Three point restraint on reclining passenger seat

Gentlemen:

I represent a passenger who was injured while she was sleeping in a bed-like reclining passenger seat. She slid out the back. She had a conventional seat belt on, but it did not help.

Are there any regulations either in the past or the future that would apply to this situation, either State or Federal? Have there been any studies on this subject or any interest in this subject. I shall appreciate whatever help you can give me.

Very truly yours,

William A. Goichman

ID: 77-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, questions whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.

The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint between a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is "Not Required To Meet Std." The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.

The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body panel that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.

In the control console area, the interior side panel described in paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.

The turn signal housings described in paragraph 40 and 41 are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.

The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 are considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered "body panels" for purposes of the requirements.

The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floor panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.

The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describe joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.

In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushion deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), "It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures." However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.

SINCERELY,

Ward SCHOOL BUS MFG., INC.

December 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength

We have interpreted FMVSS 221 and are currently working on design changes which will enable us to meet this specification in the future. Since there is some latitude for interpretation in the specification, the purpose of this letter is to convey to you exactly our interpretation of FMVSS 221 as it relates to our body design and request that you review the interpretation.

We ask that you reply to each item as to the validity of our interpretation. This review is being requested in order to eliminate the possibility of erroneous designs due to incorrect interpretation of the standard.

We have chosen a format which we feel is concise and will minimize the paperwork involved. The subject joints are numbered consecutively with the first group being those which we have determined must meet FMVSS 221. It should be noted that there are a few compound joints in this group which contain areas which we feel are not required to meet the standard. These situations are noted on the drawings.

The second group is those joints which we have determined as not being required to meet FMVSS 221. Our reasons for the classification are included with this second group. Drawings and photographs have been used to illustrate each joint. The drawings are not necessarily to scale but were drawn in a manner designed to best illustrate the joint configuration. Individual joint drawings and photographs have been numbered to correspond with the joint descriptions contained herein.

If you need any additional descriptive information, please let us know.

We ask that the drawings and photographs be given confidential treatment.

It should be noted that it is our understanding that any components which are completely below the bus floor level or forward of the windshield are not required to meet the provisions of FMVSS 221.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 1-34) ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

1. Front cap joint to upper front cowl.

2. Upper front cowl joint to lower front cowl.

3. Rear cap joint to header and rear outside panel.

4. Rear panel (interior and exterior) joints to emergency door frame.

5. Rear exterior panel joint to rear bottom frame.

6. Rear cap inside lining joint to header.

7. Rear inside lining joint to header.

8. Rear interior lining joint to frame bottom channel.

9. Rear emergency door drip trough joint to header and end cap.

10. Rear inside lining joint to bow.

11. Side skirt joint to floor.

12. Skirt section joints.

13. Center skirt section joint to wheel well.

14. Floor section joints.

15. Wheel well joint to floor.

16. Exterior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joint to bow and side sheet.

17. Interior trim panel (immediately adjacent entrance door) joints to entrance door frame and bow.

18. Interior side sheet joint to rear interior lining and rear frame corner post.

19. Interior sheet joint to exterior side panel and sill.

20. Interior sheet joint to skirt and back-up angle.

21. Interior side sheet overlap and joint to bow.

22. Interior top lining joint to bow.

23. Interior front header lining joint to header.

24. Interior front header lining joint to interior top sheet and bow.

25. Side window header joint to inside and outside lining.

26. Exterior front cap joint to top skin and bow.

27. Top skin joint to top skin and bow.

28. Exterior side sheet joint to skirt.

29. Rear sheet joint to aft edge of exterior side sheet and reinforcing channel.

30. Exterior rear sheet joint to bow.

31. Left front exterior panel---top section joint to bottom section.

32. Left hand exterior panel forward edge joint to front cowl and post.

33. Left front exterior panel to driver window sill.

34. Aft edge of left front exterior panel joint to side sheet and bow.

BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 221, THE FOLLOWING JOINTS (NUMBERS 35-52) ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 60% JOINT STRENGTH STANDARD.

35. Lower center skirt section joint to upper center skirt section.

Reason: In view of the joint configuration, the lower section does not act to enclose occupant space. The joint between the upper center skirt section and the floor is required to meet the standard.

36. Exterior bow cover joint to sill, side sheet, and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

37. Exterior trim panel at driver's window joint to "Z" bar and bow.

Reason: This is a small panel which is insignificant in enclosing occupant space. The vertical edges of this panel are also curved around the bow edges and do not present a flat edge.

38. Control console area interior side panel joint to front framework.

Reason: This is considered a maintenance access panel because the bus body wiring passes through it and the control console is installed against it.

39. Front cowl leg, left and right hand, joint to front framework and cowl.

Reason: These legs are structural members.

40. Rear turn signal housing joint to rear panel.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the rear panel at a panel edge.

41. Front body mounted turn signal housing joint to front cowl.

Reason: The turn signal housing is not considered a panel and it does not join the cowl at a panel edge. Also, these turn signals are optional items which are not installed on every bus.

42. Inside lining joint to outside lining at rear visibility windows.

Reason: The grazing rubber for glass mounting is installed along this joint. The window area is excluded from the 60% requirement in Section S4 of Standard 221. Also this is not a panel edge but rather a hole in the panel. The edges of the panel are required to meet the standard.

43. Shoulder cap (wire cover) joint to interior side sheet and window sill.

Reason: In most cases, bus body wiring is routed inside this cap thus making it a maintenance access panel and excluding it from the joint strength standard. It is understood that in cases where there are no wires beneath the cap, the subject joints are required to meet the 60% joint strength requirement.

44. Exterior side sheet forward end cap joint to side sheet and doorway trim panel.

Reason: As seen in the photo, this is a small piece which provides the transition from the formed body fairing to the flat doorway area and plays no significant role in "enclosing occupant space."

45. Interior "brite-kote" aluminum panel joint to side sheet (no photo available).

Reason: This is an optional decorative item which is furnished on only a limited number of buses.

46. Interior bow cap joint to bow.

Reason: This panel must be removed in order to replace the window, thus it is considered a maintenance access panel.

47. Rear header joints to bow.

Reason: The rear header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

48. Front header joint to upper front cowl and posts.

Reason: The front header is a structural member with only a small amount of surface area exposed to the inside of the bus occupant space.

49. Rub rail joint to side panel.

Reason: These exterior rails do not serve to "enclose occupant space."

50. Plywood floor on standard metal floor.

Reason: This is an optional insulating material.

51. License plate inset panel joint to exterior rear sheet.

Reason: The license plate inset panel is welded into a hole which is cut in the rear body panel, thus the edge of the rear body panel is not included in the joint.

52. Several items located primarily in the forward section of the bus are designed for functional purposes and are thus excluded from the standard. These items include the following (see photographs):

A) Left hand control console;

B) Left hand heater;

C) Heater duct;

D) Right hand heater;

E) Instrument panel;

F) Transmission cover plate.

We believe that these categorized lists illustrate the fact that we have tried to objectively interpret FMVSS 221. Your review of those items and subsequent reply will serve to indicate the accuracy of our interpretation.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer

ID: 23055-2.drn

Walter J. Lewis, Senior Compliance Engineer
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements for heating/air conditioning controls specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. In particular, you asked whether, for a proposed system you are considering, the design concept for identifying the temperature control, fan speed control, windshield defroster, rear window defroster, and the air conditioning/heating system would meet Standard No. 101's requirement that identification of controls be "on or adjacent" to the control. Our response is provided below.

Because your system is still undergoing development, certain specifics about how some controls are to be actuated or adjusted and identified are apparently not available. However, we believe we have sufficient information about your system, including its basic concept, to respond to your question. The following represents our understanding of how your proposed system would function, based in part on a June 18, 2001, meeting between National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officials, and Mr. Stephan Schlaefli, Porsche's General Manager for Compliance, and Mr. Dale Kardos, a Porsche consultant.

Porsche's Proposed Design for Its Control and Display System

With your letter, we were provided three additional pages: a computer-generated depiction of a passenger car interior with the proposed system, and two other pages that depict images of identification of controls as they would appear on a video display screen. ⁽¹⁾ The computer-generated image shows on the front dash a small video display screen. On a center console between the driver's seat and the front passenger seat are several buttons and a "combination multi-function switch/rotary dial." This latter device includes a dial which can be rotated and what might be called four toggle switches around the dial (or a joystick that can be moved to four positions). The buttons and combination multi-function switch/rotary dial are the controls for temperature, fan speed, the windshield defroster, the rear window defroster, heating and air conditioning, and other functions such as the radio and navigational guide.

A. Buttons Used with Video Display Screen

The buttons consist of the following, from left to right:

• A single button labeled "C," which stands for "cancel."
• A temperature control button, below which is a fan control button
• A windshield defroster control button, below which is a rear window defroster control button

Apparently, by pressing "C," one can cancel the most recently actuated function. Except for "C," each button is labeled with the ISO symbol for the respective function. Pressing the respective button turns on each function. To adjust the respective function, (i.e., increase or decrease fan speed, or raise or lower the temperature), one uses the dial that is part of the combination multi-function switch/rotary dial (located under the various buttons). This dial must be used in conjunction with the video display screen.

For example, to actuate the fan speed control, one presses the fan speed button (on the console between the driver and front passenger seats). On the video display (on the front dash) appears a circle that depicts the dial, with the fan symbol in the middle. Curved arrows within the circle point to the right and left. On another part of the video display appears the fan symbol next to six vertical bars that increase in height from short to long. Turning the dial makes the fan speed faster or slower. The fan speed is indicated by the number of illuminated bars. The faster the fan spins, the more bars are illuminated. By turning the dial to the right or left, one sees the number of bars either illuminating or darkening, until all bars are either illuminated or dark.

B. Primary Functions for the Combination Multi-Function Switch/Rotary Dial

If the dial were compared to the face of a clock, at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions of the dial are what appear to be toggle switches (or a joystick) that can be adjusted at each position. Only one position at a time can be selected.

• The 12 o'clock position is labeled "A/C," for air conditioning,
• The 3 o'clock position is labeled "SET," which stands for an unspecified function or functions (which apparently do not include controls specified in Table One of Standard No. 101),
• The 6 o'clock position is labeled "Radio" and
• The 9 o'clock position is labeled "BC" which is an abbreviation for the on-board computer that provides information such as fuel consumption, and oil temperature.

We assume the dial can be rotated indefinitely.

C. Multiple Uses for the Combination Multi-Function Switch/Rotary Dial

Although the four dial positions are labeled as described above, they in fact can be used for multiple functions that must be actuated in conjunction with the video display screen on the front dash. Not all of the functions that are available by use of the toggle switches and dials were described.

To give an example, to actuate the air conditioning system, one pushes the toggle switch at the 12 o'clock position (labeled "A/C") of the dial. One knows the air conditioning function is actuated because a new screen appears (on the video display screen), in the corner of which the term "AC" is highlighted. On the new screen appears a circle in the middle of which is the ISO symbol for temperature (a depiction of a thermometer) with the term " C." The circle represents the dial. We assume that the air conditioning can be turned up or down by turning the dial.

Contrary to what is actually labeled on the center console dial, the video display screen shows four entirely different functions for the air conditioning control. On the video display screen, the 12 o'clock position is labeled with the ISO symbol for air conditioning (a snowflake), the 3 o'clock position is labeled with the ISO symbol for air vent direction (three arrows pointing towards a passenger seat), the 6 o'clock position is labeled "Auto" (which apparently stands for a default position that one can set) and the 9 o'clock position is depicted with a symbol which we assume stands for air circulation (three curved arrows forming a circle).

If one wants to adjust the air vent direction, one pushes the toggle switch (located on the center console) at the 3 o'clock position. One knows when the correct function is selected because in the corner of the display screen, the ISO symbol for air vent direction is highlighted. Selection of the air vent direction function results in the display of other images on the display screen, this time the circle with four alternative air vent directions at each clock position. The desired air vent direction is selected by pushing the toggle switch at the depicted position.

Would a Vehicle With the Proposed Design Meet Standard No. 101's Requirement that Identification of Controls be "on or adjacent" to the Control?

With this background information, I will now address how Standard No. 101 affects your proposed design. S5.2.1(a) states in relevant part:

[a]ny hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated in column 3 ... or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table. ... Any such control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/or column 3 of Table 1 specifies "Mfr. Option" shall be identified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. (Emphasis added.)

Controls listed in column 1 of Table 1 include the "heating or air conditioning fan," the "windshield defrosting and defogging system," the "rear window defrosting and defogging system," and the "heating and air conditioning system."

Further, S5.2.2 states in relevant part:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Table 1 or Table 2, it shall be in word or symbol form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

The primary issue raised by your proposed design is whether, given the substantial distance between the combination multi-function switch/rotary dial and the related video display, the identification provided by means of the video display can be said to meet the standard's requirement that identification for specified controls be provided "on or adjacent to" the control.

I note that, in both the case of the fan control and the heating and air conditioning system controls, one must rely on the video display screen for identification of all of the functions. As previously noted, one turns the fan on or off by pressing on one of the buttons above the dial on the center console, and one turns on the heating and air conditioning system by pressing the toggle switch at the 12 o'clock position on the combination multi-function switch/rotary. In both cases, pressing the button or switch turns the function on, but to adjust the system, the dial must be turned to the right or left. The identification of the function engaged in twisting the dial is shown on the video display screen only, not on the center console.

The Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, defines "adjacent" as follows:

1. lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining; neighboring: a motel adjacent to the highway. 2. just before, after, or facing: a map on the adjacent page.

In a June 8, 2000, letter to an unnamed company, we addressed a proposed design where several multi-function push button switches were accompanied by a video screen which depicted the switches and the functions of the switches, which varied depending upon the system selected by the driver. In addressing whether the identification for the push button considered "on or adjacent" to the controls, we stated:

The answer is yes. The video screen that shows the images corresponding to the switches, and identification for the switches, is directly above the switches. Although there is a small unavoidable break between the video screen and the switches, no control, display or other potential source of distraction appears between the video screen and switches. For these reasons, we conclude that the proximity between the switches and the images/identification is so close that they are "adjacent" to each other.

By contrast, for your proposed design, there is no such close proximity between the combination multi-function switch/rotary dial and the related video display. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be "adjacent" to each other.

We note that by implication in our June 8, 2000, letter and as explained further in a February 28, 2001, letter to Mazda, we adopted an especially broad interpretation with respect to the identification of the "extreme positions" of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, as applied to controls which rotate indefinitely. We explained our position as follows:

Standard No. 101 does generally require that identification of controls be on or adjacent to the controls. Otherwise, there would be no logical connection between the identification and the control. This is why we made it clear, for the push button switches we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter, that there needed to be close proximity between the switches and the images/identification.

For traditional controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, e.g., dials, levers or buttons that move only within a limited range, it makes obvious sense to require identification of the extreme positions to be located on or adjacent to the controls. This is the logical way for a driver to be able to identify the extreme positions.

However, such a requirement does not necessarily make sense for new kinds of controls that regulate a function over a quantitative range, but do not have extreme positions in the traditional sense. For example, dials that can be rotated indefinitely are sometimes associated with a visual display. In a sense, the control consists of both the dial and the display. While it is obviously important that identification of the dial itself be located on or adjacent to the dial, there is no extreme position (in the traditional sense) to identify. And, whether for the system we addressed in our June 8, 2000, letter or for your system, we see no reason to interpret the standard to require the "means by which the driver can know when the extreme positions have been reached" (i.e., the relevant displays) to be on or adjacent to such dials.

We note, however, that if the relevant displays are separated from the dials, there must be sufficient independent identification for both the dial and the separate display that the driver can understand both items. Our review of your proposed design does not indicate any problem in this area. For example, the dial for the fan control is marked with the fan symbol to indicate function and (+) (-) signs to indicate how fan speed is increased and decreased, and the display for fan speed shows the fan symbol to identify function and a triangle to indicate relative speed.

Your system, however, is not covered by this interpretation. It involves controls other than ones which regulate a function over a quantitative range, e.g., the selection of AC subsystem functions. These controls are akin to the switches and the images/identification we discussed in our June 8, 2000, letter and which we concluded were subject to the requirement that identification be provided on or adjacent to the control. Also, in using the multi-function switch/rotary dial for controlling the fan over a quantitative range, there isn't sufficient independent identification for both the dial and the separate display. I also note that the permanent labeling of the combination multi-function switch/rotary dial with the terms "A/C, SET, Radio and BC," is inaccurate, in the sense that that labeling does not apply in situations where the driver has already selected a particular function by means of one of the four toggle switches. While correct identification is provided by means of the non-adjacent display, the actual control is mislabeled at that time.

As is apparent from reading a number of our prior interpretations of Standard No. 101, we have sought to interpret it in a broad manner in light of new technology. There is a limit, however, to how much we can do by interpretation as opposed to conducting rulemaking to facilitate the use of new technology. We recognize that the use of your system may be intuitive to persons who are familiar with computers and/or video games, since use of the multi-function switch/rotary dial is analogous to the use of a computer mouse or video game controller. However, given the current language of Standard No. 101, if a system such as your proposed design is to be permitted, where identification of controls is separated from the controls themselves, it must be done through rulemaking.

We understand that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (which includes Porsche) has recently submitted a petition for rulemaking on this subject and we plan to address this issue further in that context.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d.1/10/02





---

¹ Mr. Kardos orally asked for confidential treatment of the three pages. Mr. Kardos agreed that Porsche would not consider a written description of the computer image or the other two pages as confidential.

ID: nht88-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Bicking

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Patricia Bicking 1132 Chestnut Avenue Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this offi ce to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1989 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to allapplicable standards. You ask whether this decision stillstands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 req uires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been and improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards sin ce they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant' s exposure to injury-threatening crash forces): the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Chief Counsel

I am writing to you in behalf of the compartmentalization concept for large school buses.

I have a copy of a letter written from the NHTSA and addressed to Mr. Ron Marion of Thomas Built Buses, dated 1-19-84.

This letter states it was decided that school bus manufacturers were allowed to install seat belts for passenger seats (without) having to certify that the belts and anchorages apply with (standards) #s 208, 209 and 210. Could you please explain why this decision was made? And does this decision still stand today?

I also have information from the National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations; H-83-39 through 41.

In 1977 there were recommendations for large school buses to de designed in the way that they will support the installation and use of a seat belt.

The NHTSA response states, "Improving the seating compartments eliminates the need for seat belts and provides sufficient crash protection."

A truly excellent response but, could you please explain what, if any type improvements have been made since this date of 1977? Have any of these improvements become mandatory?

Could you also please explain what the FMVSS 222 is? And what are the major requirements for the FMVSS 222.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mrs. Patricia Bicking of Woodbury Hts. N.J.

ID: nht78-1.29

DATE: 12/18/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 18 1978

NOA-30

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1978, asking whether the Volvo "Child Cushion" must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems. You state that the "Child Cushion" is "designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years" for the purpose of raising the child "so that the seat belt system properly distributes deceleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of 'submarining'."

Section 3 of Standard No. 213 currently defines a "child seating system" as "an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle." In adopting that definition, the agency intended to cover all devices designed to seat children in motor vehicles, regardless whether a device provides restraint (38 FR 7562,1973). Although you state that the Volvo "Child Cushion" is "in itself not a restraint system" it would be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a child.

As you point out, Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while proposed Standard No. 213-80, Child Restraint Systems, does specify a size range (43 FR 21470, 1978). Section 4 of the proposed new standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

Although current Standard No. 213 does not specify the size and age range of the children intended to be protected, an upper limit of 50 pounds is indicated by a number of the standard's requirements. Section 5 of Standard No. 213 provides that the torso block to be used in conducting the static tests specified in the standard is the same torso block as used in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to test Type 3 belt assemblies. Standard No. 209 defines a Type 3 assembly as "a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years." In addition, the static load requirements of Section 4.11 of Standard No. 213 were designed to reflect the loads that would be imposed on a 40-50 pound child in a 30 mph crash (35 FR 5120, 35 FR 14778, 1970). Therefore, Standard No. 213, like proposed Standard No. 213-80, is intended to apply only to child restraints for children weighing 50 pounds or under.

If the Volvo "Child Cushion" is designed only for children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the "Child Cushion" would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. However, the agency is interested in learning of any test data that Volvo has comparing the protection provided by use of the "Child Cushion" and a three-point belt with the protection provided by use of only a three-point belt. A representative of the agency's rulemaking office will contact you concerning this request. Likewise, in order to ensure the safe use of the Volvo "Child Cushion, it is recommended that the device be clearly and permanently labelled to show that it is to be used with a three-point belt only by a specific size and age range of children.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 1, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 213

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo has developed a device which extends the protection of a vehicle's seat belt system to children too large to benefit from child seating systems currently on the market. This item is called the Volvo Child Cushion, and is designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years.

The Child Cushion is in itself not a restraint system; its purpose is to raise the child so that the seat belt system properly distributes decelleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of "submarining".

We feel that this device fills a need for adequate protection for children six years of age and older; in other words, too big for a child seat, but too small to derive full benefit from seat belts alone. The Child Cushion may be used in most vehicles with a 3-point seat belt system.

In the current FMVSS No. 213, there is no definition of the size or age range for which the standard is applicable. In the proposed FMVSS No. 213-80, however, it is clear that the standard is designed to protect children weighing 50 pounds or less, or younger than 5 years old. This is below the range for which the Child Cushion is intended. Naturally, the cushion would have to be clearly labelled to reflect the age and/or weight limitations of its use.

In our opinion, the child cushion is designed for use by children larger than those covered by FMVSS No. 213. The standard is therefore not applicable to the Volvo Child Cushion. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

The enclosed literature illustrates the design and use of the Volvo Child Cushion.

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/dpl ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phil Rounds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Phil Rounds, Esq. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable 2800 Fourth National Bank Building 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119

Dear Mr. Rounds:

Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 20B, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to a model year 1982 vehicle. The answers to your two specific questions are discussed below.

You first asked about the requirements of S4.1.2.3 of the standard. You asked whether a manufacturer that has chosen to meet that provision of the standard by installing a Type 2 safety belt at each front outboard designated seating position is required to crash test those safety belts. As explained below, S4.1.2.3 does not require the Type 2 safety belts installed in accordance with that requirement to be subjected to a crash test.

S4.1.2 of the standard sets forth the requirements for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. Thus, those requirements would apply to a model year 1982 passenger car. S4.1.2 provides that a manufacturer s hall meet the requirements of either S4.1.2.1, S4.2.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. Under S4.1.2.3, a manufacturer has the option of installing "a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that conforms to Standard No. 209" at each front outboard de signated seating position. Although Standard No. 209 establishes performance requirements for a safety belt, it does not require the crash testing of the belt.

You also asked whether lap belts installed in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.2.3 in a vehicle's rear seat must be crash tested. The answer is no, rear seat safety belts installed in accordance with S4.1.2.3 do not have to be crash tested. S4.1. 2.3 (c) sets the requirements for rear seats. It provides that a manufacturer may install either a "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. . . ." As explained above, Standard No. 209 does not require crash testing for safe ty belts.

As you requested, we are providing you with a certified copy of this letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation Letter 49 CFR

Section 571.208 5.4.1.2.3

We are writing to request a certified copy of a letter of interpretation regarding conformity with FMVSS 208 as it applies to 1982 MY vehicles.

Specifically, please confirm that where a manufacturer of a 1982 MY vehicle has elected the third option (S.4.1.2.3) and employed type 2 seatbelts (i.e., three point belts), at each front outboard designated seating position, a dynamic crash test is not required. Further, that a 49 CFR Section 571.208 S 5.1 test is also not required with regard to lap belts in the rear designated seating positions where type 2 seatbelts are employed at each front outboard designated seating position.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $3.00 to cover administrative expenses.

Yours truly,

PHIL ROUNDS PLR/bv Enclosure