ID: aiam4535

"Dear Mr. Duncan: This responds to your letter concerning situations i which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would consider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat 'gives,' but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding. The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part: S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces. (a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction, (b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction, * * * * * (d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats. The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr. Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that 'structural integrity of the seats is maintained.' The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load: (a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position, (b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan, (c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism, (d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates, or, (e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame. Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position during application of a forward load. Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht71-1.24

DATE: 08/16/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1971, in which you raised a question concerning the application of Standard 206 to doors on recreational vehicles.

Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, states that "Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view." The term "seating reference point" corresponds to a "designated seating position," which is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The question you asked is whether a seating accommodation that the manufacturer labels as "not for use while the vehicle is in motion" may be disregarded in determining which vehicle doors must comply under the Standard 206 provision quoted above.

The relevant question is whether the seating position in question is "intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion." While Standard 207 will require all seats intended by the manufacturer not to be used while the vehicle is in motion to be so labeled, it does not necessarily follow that the label will be accepted in all cases as conclusive evidence of the manufacturer's intent. The design of the seat and its location in the vehicle must also be considered. As an example, if it were found that a manufacturer had previously intended that a particular seat be used while the vehicle is in motion, and that he now attached the label merely to evade the Standard 206 requirement without changing his design, the application of Standard 206 to the vehicle would not be barred. The ultimate question in such cases is whether the label clearly is in accord with the manufacturer's intent, in light of all the facts.

The above statement is our general position on the application of Standard 206, in answer to your question. It is not intended to change the interim agreements that we made with respect to the current Standard 206 compliance problems of some of your member manufacturers.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INSTITUTE, INC.

July 27, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Larry:

We appreciate very much the time you, Dave Schmeltzer and Dick Dyson spent with us the morning of July 26th on the door lock problem.

In addition to the possible courses of action proposed in those discussions to resolve the current problem, we have reexamined the specific language of Standard No. 206 to see if an appropriate interpretation of the standard would be helpful. We have reached the conclusion as to proper interpretation of the standard set forth below and would appreciate your confirmation of this conclusion if you are in agreement with it.

Paragraph S4. Requirements, requires that side door components conform to the standard "if any portion of a 90 - percentile two - dimensional manikin . . . when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view . . ." (underscoring supplied). "Seating reference point", as defined in Part 571 - Section 571.3, seems clearly to be locatable only with reference to a "designated seating position". "Designated seating position", in turn, is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while a vehicle is in motion . . ." (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 208 (as published September 30, 1970 - 35 F.R. 190, p.15222) prescribes this amended definition and in the preamble states that "the amended definition of designated seating position in Section 571.3 does not include seats that are not intended for use while the vehicle is in motion" (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 207, effective January 1, 1972, prescribes that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

These cited provisions, and the specific requirements of Standards Nos. 207, 208, and 210, seem clearly to contemplate that in some vehicles subject to these standards there will be seating accommodations but which are not intended by the manufacturer for use while the vehicle is in motion. This is particularly true of motor homes since manufacturers provide seating for dining and for other uses while the vehicle is not in motion.

We have concluded, therefore, that current Standard No. 206 is not applicable in either of the following situations:

(1) Where there is no seating accommodation at all projecting into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view.

(2) Where there is a seating accommodation but the manufacturer of the vehicle has specifically designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion any portion of such seating accommodation which would fall within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

It necessarily follows that, if the foregoing interpretations of the standard are correct, then a manufacturer, dealer or distributor, may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle, without violation of the Safety Act, which either does not have any seating accommodation at all or does not have designated seating positions falling within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206. A similar conclusion applies to certification labeling as to conformity with applicable Federal safety standards. Although the labeling requirements of Standard No. 207 are not effective until January 1, 1972, we presume that any labeling by the manufacturer of each seating position which might otherwise make the vehicle subject to Standard No. 206 as "not for use while the vehicle" would make the standard inapplicable to such vehicle. We, of course, would recommend to manufacturers at the time these conclusions are communicated to them that such labeling be conspicuous and designed to attract the attention of the vehicle occupants. We would recommend also to the manufacturers, as an added safety feature, that they provide dead bolt locks where feasible for each such motor home where there are seating accommodations which, while designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion, would otherwise fall within the language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

Your expeditious consideration of these conclusions and their confirmation would be appreciated. We would like to be able to incorporate them in the contemplated general memorandum from RVI to the industry which will provide information regarding the Bargman Company part replacement program. These interpretations of the standard will aid the situation to some degree, hopefully, and together with your favorable action on the other ideas for resolution of the matter which we discussed may well alleviate much of the worst of the considerable adverse economic impact on the RV industry.

Very truly yours,

David J. Humphreys

cc: F. M. Radigan; Philip N. Shrake

ID: aiam3543

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter asking a number of questions concernin the definition of Seating Reference Point (49 CFR 571.3). Your letter indicates that the questions arise from a concern that the definition may limit rearward seat track travel.; The agency recently published, in response to petitions for rulemaking an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the definition of Seating Reference Point. Among other things, the preamble to the notice explains that while the definition of Seating Reference Point establishes limitations on where manufacturers must locate that point, it does not prevent manufacturers from extending seat track travel behind the point. We have enclosed a copy of that notice for your convenience.; Your first question asks for an interpretation of the definition o Seating Reference Point. Among the interpretations you suggest, the one which is most nearly correct is the one which says the Seating Reference Point is the single self-determining point (no choice for the manufacturer) where the 90th percentile two- dimensional manikin should be positioned according to the SAE J826.; The enclosed notice explains that section (d) of the definition o Seating Reference Point requires manufacturers to use the 90th percentile template described in SAE Recommended Practice J826 in locating the Seating Reference Point. While manufacturers must use that template in locating the Seating Reference Point, there is some small leeway (using that device) as to where the point may actually be located. Thus, while your interpretation is partially correct, it is not correct to the extent that it suggests that there is no choice (as opposed to a limited choice) for the manufacturer.; The rest of your questions appear to involve the same issue, i.e. which version of an SAE Recommended Practice to use when a safety standard incorporates by reference an SAE Recommended Practice that has later been updated by SAE. The version which must be used is the one actually referenced by the standard. The fact that SAE updates one of its Recommended Practices does not change a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that incorporates an earlier version. Such a change would require the same type of rulemaking as any other amendment.; We believe that you will be able to answer your questions based on th foregoing discussion and the enclosed notice.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0421

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1971, in which yo raised a question concerning the application of Standard 206 to doors on recreational vehicles.; Standard 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, states tha 'Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view.' The term 'seating reference point' corresponds to a 'designated seating position,' which is defined as 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.' The question you asked is whether a seating accommodation that the manufacturer labels as 'not for use while the vehicle is in motion' may be disregarded in determining which vehicle doors must comply under the Standard 206 provision quoted above.; The relevant question is whether the seating position in question i 'intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion.' While Standard 207 will require all seats intended by the manufacturer not to be used while the vehicle is in motion to be so labeled, it does not necessarily follow that the label will be accepted in all cases as conclusive evidence of the manufacturer's intent. The design of the seat and its location in the vehicle must also be considered. As an example, if it were found that a manufacturer had previously intended that a particular seat be used while the vehicle is in motion, and that he now attached the label merely to evade the Standard 206 requirement without changing his design, the application of Standard 206 to the vehicle would not be barred. The ultimate question in such cases is whether the label clearly is in accord with the manufacturer's intent, in light of all the facts.; The above statement is our general position on the application o Standard 206, in answer to your question. It is not intended to change the interim agreements that we made with respect to the current Standrad 206 compliance problems of some of your member manufacturers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard No. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

SINCERELY,

Illinois Department of Transportation

OCC-1254

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash - Worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ATTACH.

REF. OCC-662

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2. S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Melvin Smith, Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: 1984-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/89 (est.) from Stephen P. Wood to L.T. Mitchell (Thomas Built Buses) (Redbood A33; Std. 217); 2/24/89 letter from Dan Trexler (Thomas Built) to Joan Tilghman (NHTSA); 4/27/88 letter from L.T. Mitchell to Erika Jones (NHTSA)

TEXT: This responds to your letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Passenger Protection, and FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Please accept our apology for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your first question concerned your interpretation of FMVSS No. 222. You stated that Illinois has told school bus sellers and users that an aisle facing seat may not be installed in vehicles characterized by your state as Type I school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more), unless the seat is necessary in order to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger. Moreover, your state determined that aisle facing seats "installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs" will not be allowed. You asked whether your state has correctly interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 222.

Standard No. 222 exempts from its requirements aisle facing seats which are installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. The term "installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers" includes seats installed longitudinally to provide space for moving wheelchairs through the aisles. Thus, our interpretation of the word "accommodate" is broader than that of Illinois.

We would like to point out that a state requirement that regulates the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard is preempted under @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), unless the state standard is identical. A state standard which disallows aisle facing seats installed to accommodate the handicapped regulates the same aspect of performance, i.e., seat orientation, as FMVSS No. 222, and would be preempted under @ 103(d).

Your second question stated your understanding that the forward facing requirement in Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 222 does not apply to aisle facing seats in school buses characterized by Illinois as "Type II" school buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). You have told school bus sellers and users that aisle facing seats may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. You asked whether your interpretation of the standard is correct.

The answer to your question is that the language of Standard No. 222 does not require school bus passenger seats on a school bus with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds to be forward facing. The requirement for forward facing seats found in S5.1 was not included in S5(b), the section that lists the requirements that smaller school buses must meet.

Your third question concerned the applicability of FMVSS No. 222 to aisle facing seats on school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (your "Type II" school bus). As discussed earlier, Standard No. 222 excludes aisle facing seats installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers from the definition of "school bus passenger seat." Since the performance requirements of the standard that are specified in S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4, S5.1.5, and S5.3, are expressed in reference to the "school bus passenger seats," the requirements do not apply to aisle facing seats which are installed solely to accommodate handicapped passengers. However, Standard Nos. 222 does require that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Therefore, the agency concludes that aisle facing seats must have seat belts and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of these standards.

Your fourth question concerned FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, and the use of "theater" type seat cushions. You described that type of seat cushion as containing a hinge near the seat back which allows the cushion to swing up against the seat back. The first part of the question asked whether this type of seat cushion would be allowed by the Federal safety standards. The answer is that the safety standards would not prohibit the use of these folding seats if such seats meet all applicable performance requirements.

The second part of the question asked whether the use of "theater" type seat cushions eliminates the requirement of S5.4.2.1(b) that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. The answer is no. As indicated above, folding seats may be used only if they meet all of the standard's applicable requirements.

The third part of the question asked, "How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?" The answer is that no variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible.

The fourth part of the question concerns S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217 as it applies to your "Type I" and "Type II" school buses. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(b) states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. You asked whether the transverse plane may be positioned 4 to 12 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. The standard specifies that the plane shall pass through the forward edge of the side emergency door and thus no variation is permissible.

You requested copies of previous interpretations made by the agency concerning school bus seating. These interpretations may be obtained from NHTSA's Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We will forward your request to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Illinois Department of Transportation

September 24, 1984

Frank A. Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Earlier this year during a telephone conversation our Standards Engineer (M. Post) asked Mr. Robert Williams, of your Crash-worthiness Division, a few questions about requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards governing school bus seating. Mr. Williams said such questions should be submitted to the Chief Counsel's Office and suggested they be sent to your attention. Last May I addressed and sent the attached letter but have received no reply.

When should I expect a reply?

Sincerely,

Melvin H. Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

Attachment

Illinois Department of Transportation

May 21, 1984

FRANK BERNDT -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Except for certain transit, interurban, charter, and shuttle buses, Illinois standards for Type I school buses (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) and Type II school buses (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) apply to vehicles owned or operated by or for a school and designed to carry more than ten persons. These Illinois standards include, by reference, each federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS -- 49 CFR 571) that applies to school bus. The State owns very few, if any, school buses, but each school bus registered in the State must conform to State school bus rules and standards. Under 15 USC 1392(d) our State requirements for school bus seats must be identical to federal requirements stated in applicable FMVSS.

1. Each Illinois school bus must have an aisle extending from front service entrance area to rear emergency exit. Because of the forward facing and limited spacing requirements in FMVSS 222, S5.1 and S5.2, we have told school bus sellers and users an aisle facing seat may NOT be installed in a Type I school bus unless the seat is required to accommodate a handicapped or convalescent student passenger who uses that aisle facing seat. (See definition of school bus passenger seat in FMVSS 222, S4.) For example, an aisle facing seat may be installed to accommodate a student with limited knee movement who cannot sit in forward facing seat close behind barrier or seat back. In Type I school buses we have disallowed aisle facing seat(s) installed to make room for passage or transport of wheelchairs because the aisle facing seat(s) would accommodate, or seat, either normal student passengers or student passengers not requiring the extra space because of limited knee movement or other handicap. The transportation of handicapped student(s) shall NOT be used to deny any other student in a Type I school bus the full protection of a forward facing seat conforming to FMVSS 222. Are these correct interpretations of FMVSS 222 requirements?

2. Because the forward facing requirement in S5.1 and the limited spacing requirement in S5.2 do not apply to Type II school buses we have told school bus sellers and users aisle facing seat(s) may be installed in Type II school buses for use by any student passenger. In some Type II school buses ALL seats face the aisle. Is "aisle facing seat for any student in Type II school bus" a correct interpretation of FMVSS 222?

3. Recently, additional questions have arisen. In a Type II school bus (GVWR 10,000 pounds or less) does FMVSS 222:

a. Require seat belts at each seating position, including seating positions on aisle facing seats?

b. Require seat belts and anchors meet requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210 at each seating position on aisle facing seat?

c. Require aisle facing seat meet requirements of S5.1.2, S5.1.3, S5.1.4 and/or S5.1.5?

d. Require an aisle facing seat be equipped with a seat back?

e. Require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between each seating reference point of aisle facing seat and the seat(s) or other object(s) across the aisle, or require S5.3.1 and/or S5.3.2 be met in a zone between the forwardmost seating reference point of an aisle facing seat and the seat or other object(s) forward of that seating reference point?

f. Require that S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both, or neither, be complied with in the case of an aisle facing seat?

4. Both Type I and Type II school buses in Illinois have been equipped with one or more "theater" type seat cushions. This type cushion is arranged with a hinge near the seatback allowing the seating surface of the cushion to swing up against the seatback. The cushion might swing up automatically, under action of spring(s), or might require manual raising and securing into the "up" position. The "theater" type cushion has been used on forward facing seat adjacent to side emergency door and also on forward facing or aisle facing seat(s) in other locations to provide optional use of space either for seating (cushion down) or for wheelchair (cushion up).

a. Do FMVSS either allow or disallow the "theater" type seat cushion?

b. Does the presence of "theater" type seat cushion eliminate the requirement in FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), for a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back to pass through forward edge of side emergency door?

c. How much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and the door edge does NHTSA deem to be reasonable?

d. Does FMVSS 217, S5.4.2.1(b), merely require the forward edge of door be located at or rearward of the plane; i.e., allow the plane to be 4 -- 12 inches forward of forward edge of door? (This condition has been observed on school bus certified under 49 CFR 567 without "theater" type seat cushion.)

Thank you very much for answering these questions. We would also appreciate your providing us with any available earlier interpretations of the FMVSS's governing school bus seating.

Sincerely,

Melvin Smith -- Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

ID: 244424aogm

Mr. Martin Krenn
Concept Technologic GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria




Dear Mr. Krenn:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to Ms. Karen Nuschler regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is developing a motorhome. The development of this vehicle has raised questions regarding the location of targets and target zones and test procedures under Standard No. 201.

Under the provisions of Standard No. 201, vehicles must meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. The targets are located by a mapping procedure found in the Standard. Once a target point is located, a 12.7 mm target circle centered on the target point serves as the test target. Any part of that target circle may be struck by the headform during a test.

Your first question relates to the proper procedure for locating targets on the upper roof. The head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those targets that are located using the procedures found in S10 of the standard. In the case of the upper roof, S10.9 specifies that the upper roof target (target UR) may be located anywhere within the upper roof zone. Therefore, once the boundaries of the upper roof zone are established as set forth in the standard, UR may be located at any point within those boundaries. Your message contains a photograph of the interior of a vehicle. Referring to the photograph, you ask if a point on an area of the vehicle depicted in the photo represents the proper location of the transverse vertical plane described in S8.15(b).

The boundaries of the upper roof are located through use of the procedures set forth in S8.15(a) through (h). S8.15(b) directs that a transverse vertical plane, plane B, be located at the rearmost point where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle centerline. Once located, plane B serves as the rearmost boundary of the upper roof. The photograph incorporated into your electronic mail message depicts what appears to be the cab area of a motorhome and shows the passenger side B-pillar and what appears to be the rear of the front outboard passenger seat. The photograph also depicts that the interior roof of the vehicle is comprised of at least two sections. The first section is located over the driver and front passenger seat and continues from the front header to the rear edge of the B-Pillar. This section meets a transverse vertical panel that extends upward until it contacts the remainder of the roof, which then continues to the rear of the vehicle. A drawing of the vehicle also embedded in your message indicates that this front section of the interior roof also serves as the floor of a storage compartment that is enclosed on the sides and top by the raised exterior roof of the vehicle.

A notation and arrow on the photograph point to an area on the rearmost section of the interior roof segment located over the driver and passenger seats. You ask if this point is the proper location for plane B under S8.15(b). The answer is no. The area depicted in your photograph is not located at the rearmost point where a the transverse plane "B" contacts the interior roof. The photographs and drawings in your email message indicate that the point you have marked is located at what appears to be the rearmost point of a section of the interior roof. However, the interior roof of the vehicle does not terminate at this point. Although the interior roof is bisected by a transverse vertical section that serves as the door for an overhead storage compartment, the interior roof extends rearward from the aft edge of this door to the rear of the vehicle. For the purposes of defining the upper roof under S8.15(b), the entire interior roof, not just the rearmost point of a discontinuity in the interior roof, must be considered when locating plane B.

It should be noted, however, that because the vehicle in question is a motorhome, the range of potential targets within the upper roof is restricted by S6.3(c). S6.3(c) provides that the performance requirements found in S6.1 and S6.2 do not apply to any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating position in an ambulance or a motor home. As the vehicle described in your message appears to be a motorhome for the purposes of Standard No. 201, it must only comply with the performance requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 for those targets located forward of the transverse vertical plane located less than 600 mm to the rear of the seating reference point.

Your message also indicates your concern about the location of the side rail target known as SR3 within your vehicle. You correctly observe that the procedure for locating this target is set forth in S10.7 of Standard No. 201. However, you note that if you follow this procedure to locate the target in your companys product, the particular configuration of the roof results in the SR3 target being located well above the actual side rail. As indicated by the photographs incorporated in your message, the use of the procedure in S10.7 results in the target being located some distance above the side rail. You further indicate that these target locations are so high in the vehicle that it is unlikely that they would even be struck by a standing person in the event of a crash. As it appears unlikely that an occupant might strike this target location, you ask what procedure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow in locating and testing this target.

When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with the procedures and requirements found in the applicable standard. In the case of the vehicle depicted in your electronic mail message, or a similar vehicle, the agency would perform testing using the target location dictated by S10.7.

Your last question regards the proper procedure for determining the proper vertical approach angles for testing. Your message notes that the procedure for determining the maximum vertical approach angle is found in S8.13.4.2 of Standard No. 201. You ask what the proper procedure would be in a case where a target was relocated to a point where rotation of the free motion headform (FMH) in accordance with S8.12.4.2(a) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle. In such a case, you ask if the target must be relocated again or if the test should be performed without rotating the FMH downward by 5 degrees as set forth in S8.12.4.2(b)(1).

S8.13.4 specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching a particular type of target. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area. S8.13.4.2(b) directs that one step in determining the maximum vertical approach angle is to rotate the FMH while keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target until the lowerportion of the FMH contacts the vehicle. Once this angle is derived, S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) direct that the maximum vertical approach angle is the angle that results from rotating the FMH downward by either 5 or 10 degrees from the angle found by following S8.13.4.2(b).

In a case where the configuration of the vehicle is such that the rotation of the FMH specified in S8.12.4.2(b) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle, the FMH should be rotated upward until the forehead impact zone is no longer in contact with any part of the target. For the purposes of S8.12.4.2(b), NHTSA considers the angle at which the forehead impact zone loses contact with any part of the target to be equivalent to the angle found when the FMH can no longer be physically rotated upward. If a target is located above a window opening or is otherwise located where there is no vehicle structure to impede upward rotation, the lack of an impediment to this upward rotation should not, in NHTSAs view, require relocation of an otherwise valid target.

As your company is apparently in the process of developing a motorhome, you should be aware that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001, requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001, seeking similar relief for multi-stage vehicles. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles from September 1, 2002, to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions and anticipates issuing a notice regarding its response to the petitions in the near future. In the interim, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002, (67 FR 41348) providing final stage manufacturers and alterers with an additional year to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.8/22/02

ID: Dear [blank] latch in non-DSP 2

ID: nht72-1.40

DATE: 08/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and 28, 1972, on the subject of the positioning of seat backs for the purposes of testing under Standards No. 208 and 210.

The "nominal design riding position" specified in Standard 208 and formerly employed in Standard 210 is the position considered by the manufacturer as that most likely to be used by vehicle occupants. In our compliance tests, we ask the manufacturer of each vehicle to be tested to advise us of the correct position.

The term "most upright position" used in Standard 210 was adopted in part to avoid the need to go to the manufacturers for advice each time we tested a vehicle's seats. Under S4.3.2 of the standard, the seat back is adjusted to the position which places the seating surface most nearly in a vertical position.

There have, however, been difficulties with the use of the "most upright position", in cases where that position is not the same as the position used by the manufacturer to establish the seating reference point. Because S4.3.2 also calls for the positioning of the SAE J826 mannikin on the seating reference point, there is a possibility that the manikin cannot be correctly positioned. This does not appear to be a serious discrepancy, but it is one that should be resolved, and we intend to do so by appropriate amendment in the Federal Register.

ID: 06-005822as