ID: perea

Gilbert A. Perea, State Transportation Director
New Mexico Department of Education
School Transportation Unit
Education Building
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

Dear Mr. Perea:

This responds to your letter asking about the modification of your large school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds) by the installation of a new seating system that has an integral lap and shoulder belt system. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that an equipment manufacturer, Busbelts Development Corporation (BDC), has been promoting its seating systems for school buses in New Mexico. You enclose photographs of the BDC product and copies of material provided by BDC. The seating systems appear to be standard school bus bench seats that have been modified to incorporate an integrated lap and shoulder belt system. The shoulder belt portion of the system attaches to the top of the school bus seat back. You state that Mr. Gary H. Murphy of BDC has informed you that "all of the required tests have been completed to conform to applicable [FMVSSs] in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration certified and approved testing Lab." ⁽¹⁾ Further, a BDC brochure states that its system "enhances and complies with compartmentalization . . . ."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked that we respond to four questions. Each question concerns the safety of the BDC system and whether a school bus that has had its original seats replaced with the BDC seating systems would continue to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing those questions, it might be helpful to have some background information concerning seat belts on school buses.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under our Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection to school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

1. Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
2. Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and,
3. Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1. Does the Busbelts Development Corporation's integrated shoulder belt and/or occupant restraint system meet all applicable FMVSSs?

Because the BDC system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are almost no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components systems such as the bench seat and integrated belt system. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the BDC product, assuming the product is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. Our standard for seat belt anchorage strength (Standard No. 210) also applies to new, completed vehicles. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading.⁽²⁾

The only safety standard that applies to the aftermarket product is Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 specifies strength, ease-of-use and other requirements for seat belt webbing, buckles, and other components. Section S4.1(c) of Standard No. 209 requires that a lap-and-shoulder belt system (a "Type 2 seat belt assembly") must provide upper torso restraint without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region. Some of the photographs you provided depict children wearing the Type 2 seat belt with the lap portion in the middle of their bodies, above the pelvic region. Placement of the lap portion of the seat belt in the abdominal area of a passenger is prohibited by S4.1(c). A belt positioned over the abdominal area will load the abdomen in a crash, resulting in a greater likelihood of injury to the abdomen and surrounding organs.

It appears from some of the photographs that the lap belt is pulled on to the abdominal area of some of the children by a device that adjusts the positioning of the lap and the shoulder belts on small children. We refer to these types of devices as "belt positioning devices." Due in part to our concerns about positioning a lap belt over a child's abdominal area and about how some devices introduce excessive slack into the shoulder belt, we recently began a rulemaking action to regulate these devices. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to require belt positioning devices to be labeled with a warning not to use them with children under a certain size (e.g., a child smaller than the average 6-year-old), and not to have the lap belt positioned over the child's abdomen. A copy of our NPRM is enclosed for your information.

If the BDC system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the seating system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

2. Would retrofitting a school bus with the Busbelt integrated shoulder belt system make the school bus no longer meet Standard No. 222?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of a shoulder belt into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization. As we explained in the background section, Standard No. 222's compartmentalization requirements rely on the school bus seat backs to help cushion and contain the occupants in a crash. Each seat back protects not only the occupant of that seating position, but also the occupant seated rearward of that seating position. If a shoulder belt were attached to a school bus seat back, the belt may prevent the seat back from deflecting forward in the manner required by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222 to protect the rearward passenger. In other words, in a crash the seat back will not perform in a manner that would provide protection to an unrestrained passenger.

Even if the seat back deflects as required by Standard No. 222, it is possible that compartmentalization could be compromised by the attachment of a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back. These relate to possible problems resulting from a load application of two different forces on the school bus seat in a severe crash. In a forward collision, a passenger restrained by the shoulder belt would load the belt at an earlier point in time than the point at which the seat back is impacted by an unbelted occupant seated directly rearward of the seat. The forward force on the seat back from the shoulder belt would tilt the seat back forward prior to the impact of the rearward unbelted occupant against the seat back. The unbelted occupant would ramp up the tilted seat back in the crash, rather than be contained in what had been a compartmentalized space. That occupant not contained in the compartment would be at greater risk of injury due to possible ejection and/or impacts against hard or unforgiving surfaces.⁽³⁾ Both the head of the unrestrained passenger and the head of the restrained passenger could impact, possibly injuring both children.

The head of the unrestrained passenger could impact the head of the restrained passenger, resulting in possible injury to the two passengers.

Compartmentalization could be compromised in other ways as well. The seat backs of school buses must meet head protection requirements specified in S5.3.1. The performance requirements in S5.3.1 generally lead manufacturers to pad their seat backs with energy-absorbing foam and to ensure that there are no hard structures in the seat back that can cause head injuries to the passenger rearward of the seat back in a crash. Anchoring a shoulder belt to the seat back may require the installation of rigid components, which may cause the seat back to no longer meet S5.3.1.

The seat backs must also meet leg protection requirements specified in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222. The requirements are generally met by padding and other measures to protect passengers' knees as they impact seat backs in a crash. Apparently BDC modifies the school bus seat by installing a cross bar and D-ring structure to mount the belts and by installing a steel lap and shoulder belt retraction system within the seat back. The knee and leg protection requirements of the standard must continue to be met with the retrofitted components in the seat back.

In addition to the issues discussed above, care should be taken to ensure that passengers will not be entangled in the shoulder belt webbing material in a crash. Shoulder belts that have a considerable amount of webbing around the head and neck area of children pose a risk of strangulation or other neck injuries.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with an integrated lap and shoulder belt system might reduce the crash protection provided by compartmentalization. ⁽⁴⁾ There is limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan on conducting some research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. Information from this research program will help researchers better understand and develop the next generation of occupant protection systems for school buses.

3. Would retrofitting a school bus with an integrated shoulder belt system make inoperative the bus's compliance with FMVSS 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We believe that replacing a school bus seat with a seating system that has a torso belt is likely to make inoperative an element of design installed as part of the compartmentalization concept. We are concerned about the continued compliance of the bus with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements. We are concerned about the ability of the bus to continue to provide required crash protection to children regardless of whether a belt is used.

4. If a school bus were retrofitted with the Busbelt integrated shoulder belt system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash regardless of whether they buckle up. A torso belt may reduce that level of safety to an unbelted passenger. As previously stated, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the ability of a school bus to protect unbelted occupants. We will be evaluating integrated lap and shoulder belt systems in our school bus research program. The program will provide information that will help us better assess the merits, costs and feasibility of having integrated seat belts on school buses.

Before closing, we wish to address a statement that BDC made in its marketing literature in support of seat belts on large school buses. BDC states that its "dynamic test data" shows that in a 30 mile per hour (mph) school bus crash, an unbelted occupant "suffered fatal head injuries (2000 HIC level) when his/her head came in contact with a standard school bus seat." These test data apparently result from computer simulations conducted for BDC. The data do not reflect the data we have obtained in actual crash testing of school buses. Actual crash test data from a 30 mph barrier crash conducted by NHTSA indicate that HIC measurements recorded by calibrated test dummies are all well below the 1,000 threshold level.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of your newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before you decide to retrofit any school bus with any seat belt, it may be prudent for you to share BDC's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor warranties if the BDC seat belts are placed on school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:222
d.10/28/99

^1. We note that this statement is misleading. NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

^2. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the seating systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

^3. Another concern associated generally to the use of lap and lap and shoulder belts on large school buses relates to the potential for seat failure resulting from combined stresses exerted simultaneously or in close succession on a school bus seat by: (1) the belted occupant of the seat, where the seat belt is attached to the seat frame; and (2) an unbelted occupant, seated directly rearward of the seat, impacting the seat back. In a severe crash, the combined force applications on a particular seat resulting from a belted occupant and an unbelted occupant in the rearward seat could increase the likelihood of seat failure or seat deformation. We do not believe that school buses are frequently involved in the type of severe frontal crashes where this phenomenon is likely to occur. However, there is a risk that compartmentalization could be compromised in this circumstance.

^4. The concerns discussed above relating to the compatibility of compartmentalization with existing designs of lap and shoulder belts also apply to the situation where a belt system is retrofitted to existing school bus seats (i.e., where the original bench seat is modified but not replaced).

ID: aiam3058

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1979, regarding th photographic procedures, announced in Docket 73-19, Notice 24 (43 FR 40229, September 11, 1978), to be used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in evaluating shielding panel damage in compliance testing for the Part 581 *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR Part 581). You ask where the camera is located when taking the 45 degree angle photograph specified in Notice 24 under the heading Camera Position. You also ask where the three photoflood lamps specified in Notice 24 under the heading Illumination are positioned.; Where the plan of the shielding panel area under examination i nominally horizontal, NHTSA positions the camera and lamps relative to the vertical reference line running through the center of the suspect area. Where the plane of the shielding panel area is nominally vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps will be positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. Where the plane of the suspect area is nominally vertical and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the vehicle, the camera and lamps are positioned relative to the horizontal reference line running through the center of the suspect area, perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line.; In taking the 90 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera o the reference line so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from the point at which the reference line intersects the surface of the suspect area (point S). In taking the 45 degree angle photograph, NHTSA positions the camera on a line which intersects the reference line at a 45 degree angle at point S, and which lies in a vertical plane containing the reference line. Where the reference line is vertical, the camera is positioned on a line which lies in a plane parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The camera is positioned so that the foremost point of the camera lens is six feet from point S. A camera position is chosen which provides an unobstructed view of the suspect area.; The two main photoflood lamps are positioned facing the exterio surface of the suspect area with the filament of each lamp ten feet from point S. Except where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positioned in the horizontal plane containing point S, on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing the reference line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form a 45 degree angle with the reference line.; Where the reference line is vertical, the two main lamps are positione in the vertical plane containing point S which is perpendicular to the vehicle's longitudinal center line. The lamps are positioned on opposite sides of the vertical plane containing point S which is parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal center line, so that the lines connecting the lamp filaments with point S form 45 degree angles with the reference line.; NHTSA has determined that the third photoflood lamp described in Notic 24, to be employed for fill-in lighting, is unnecessary and this lamp is not used by the agency.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3813

Dear Mr Ingman: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safet Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). More specifically, you stated that you represent a client who has designed a 'child's seat belt,' which is attached to the seat belts installed in the vehicle to restrain children. Before proceeding further with development work on this product, you indicated that you needed answers to a number of questions.; Your first question was whether the definition of 'child restrain system' in section S4 of Standard No. 213 prohibits the use of a system like your client's 'child's seat belt.' Section S4 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 weight not more than 50 pounds.' Apparently you were concerned that the language excluding Types I and II seat belts from the requirements of Standard No. 213 prohibits the use of child seat belts as child restraints. That is not the case. Seat belts which are designed solely to restrain children who weigh not more than 50 pounds would be considered child restraint systems and be subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 213.; You raised a number of ancillary questions, to which I will respond i the order you presented them.; (a) You asked if sections S5.4.3.3 and S5.4.3.4 of Standard No. 21 require that, where belts are used to restrain a child, there be belts passing over each shoulder, a lap belt, and a crotch restraint. Those sections do so require. A belt system similar to that used by adults with a lap belt and a single shoulder belt could not be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.; (b) You stated that section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits child restraint, other than a child harness, system from being attached to a Type II shoulder belt as a restraint against forward movement of the child restraint system, and inquired if this language means that your child's seat belt could not use a shoulder belt as one of its anchoring points. No child restraint system can be attached to Type II shoulder belts during the testing specified in Standard No. 213.; As a related question, you inquired whether a child harness would b permitted to use a Type II shoulder belt as an anchorage point. This question apparently arises from the language in section S5.3.2, which reads: 'When installed on a vehicle seat, each child restraint system, other than a child harness, shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in S571.209) that meets Standard No. 208, or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4.' A child harness is not prohibited by S5.3.2 or any other provision of the standard from using a Type II shoulder belt as an anchoring point. However, the child harnesses manufactured in the past, and those envisioned when Standard No. 213 was promulgated, were devices with two tether straps which attach to each other after passing around the seat back. Hence, the child harness does not need to be attached to Type II belts to provide restraint against forward movement.; (c) You asked what parts of the child's seat belt would be considere 'the child restraint system.' Only the seat belts and the attachment hardware would be considered part of the child restraint system. The seat belts in the vehicle, the car's seats, and the adult holding a child using the child's seat belt are not part of the child restraint system.; (d) You indicated that your client was interested in recommending 'la applications' of the child's seat belt, in which the restrained child would have his or her belt attached to a seat belt in use by an adult at that time, and the child would be seated in the adult's lap. You asked if Section S4.1(a) of Standard No. 209 would prohibit such lap applications, since it required that seat belts be designed for use by only one person at any given time. A lap application of your child's seat belt would not violate that requirement, because the seat belt in the vehicle, which is the only one subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209, would still be designed for use by only one person, even though you were actually using it to restrain two people.; However, I urge you not to recommend this lap application of you client's child seat belt. In a crash situation, a lap application would result in the restrained child being exposed not only to the impact forces of the crash, but also being subjected to forces generated by the restrained adult. Additionally, a lap application could overload the adult's belts and anchorages and cause a failure of the entire belt system, leaving both the adult and child unrestrained in the crash. Either of these occurrences could result in more serious injuries to the restrained child, or avoidable injuries to both the child and adult, and expose your client to product liability difficulties.; (e) The buckle release requirements of Standard No. 209 are no applicable to child restraint systems. Those systems are subject to the buckle release requirements specified in section S5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213.; (f) The adjustment requirements of Standard No. 209 are not applicabl to child restraint systems.; (g) You asked what standard applies to a seat belt system designed t restrain the 51-100 pound child. Standard No. 209 applies to all seat belt systems, except those designed to restrain children who weigh not more than 50 pounds. Any seat belt system designed for use by larger children would have to be certified as meeting all requirements of Standard No. 209.; If you have any further questions on this subject, please contact Mr Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4929

"Dear Mr. Barkman: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, t Ms. Susan Schruth of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Because your questions concern a final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ms. Schruth has referred your letter to our office for response. Your questions are as follows. 1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings? Your understanding of the September 1, 1991, final rule is correct. The only exception to these requirements is that the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement does not apply to rear outboard seating positions located adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to allow access to more rearward seating positions. I am enclosing a copy of the Federal Register notice for this final rule. A discussion of this exception is found on page 46258. A discussion of the agency's rationale for excluding small school buses from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement is found on page 46260 of the same notice. 2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus interiors with school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness? The answer to this question depends on whether these vehicles are classified as school buses. Under NHTSA's certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle's type is determined using the definitions set out in 49 CFR 571.3. A school bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, to and from school or school-related events. A program for pre-primary age children is considered a school if the program is primarily educational rather than custodial in nature. If your vehicle is a not a school bus, it must comply with the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement. If the vehicle is a school bus, it does not have to comply with this requirement. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 08-004149--19 Nov 08--sa

ID: aiam4797

Dear Mr. Kadoya: This responds to your request for interpretations o several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned 'active' suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height. Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently the active suspension system would be operational only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of 'z' mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by 'x' mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicle were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the suspension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by 'y' mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard down not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is particularly true for ones which may only be relevant to as-yet-undeveloped technologies. In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking. I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment In asking about Standard No. 108, you stated the following: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that the requirements of FMVSS 108 must be meet (sic), ...at any time in which...' lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be, '...operated for its intended purpose.' Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the 'on' or 'off' position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hours, at maximum, only. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct. I note that the February 1985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following: We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that 'the requirements of FMVSS 108' must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, out interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, out interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement. We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days. In addressing how Standard No. 108 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February 1985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purposes of the requirements in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has been turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking. It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors You requested an interpretation of section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to 'provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...' You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver's eye reference points are made referenced to point with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on 'intended purpose,' Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's switch is correct, and (2) for the purpose of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA. We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.1.1 for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. However, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.1.1. With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guidelines (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that is should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation, i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, since the test is static, For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicles's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested. Standard No.204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead. You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height. Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in a 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111. THIS DATABASE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE COMPLETE LETTER - DUE TO ITS LENGTH. THIS IS PART I. PART II IS ALSO DATED OCTOBER 2, 1990 AND COVERS QUESTIONS ON STANDARDS 208, 301 AND THE BUMPER STANDARD, PART 581. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4052

Dear Mr. Thatcher: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regiona Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.; You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of van which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which thi agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.; The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts i Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1.3 of the standard provides:; >>>In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the sea structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.<<<; According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from th seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75 degrees. If the outboard portion of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing it would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75 degrees.; We cannot offer an opinion as to whether the inboard portion of th safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0507

Dear Mr. Ekegren: This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1971, to David H Soule of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for school bus lighting.; You are concerned with paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) which reads: >>>'The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps ar activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.'<<<; You have commented that 'the use of the automatic system would make i mandatory that the red lights go on when the door is open and stop traffic where unnecessary--such as railroad crossings.' That is not correct. You will see from S4.1.4(b)(ii) that the red lamps are not automatically activated when the bus entrance door opens unless there has been prior manual or foot activation of the amber signal lamps.; You are also concerned with the fact 'that this automatic system i patented and only one manufacturer has the right to make it.' Since you have not enclosed the copy of the patent enclosed in attorney Smith's letter to you dated June 4, 1970, I am unable to comment on your statement. I would like to point out that Standard No. 108 does not mandate the use of an amber-red lamp system, a system of red lamps only is also permissible. If the amber-red lamp system is used, paragraph S4.1.4(b)(ii) does not specify system design but only that the system be wired so that the driver can activate the amber lamp system at his option, and if he does activate it, that it automatically be deactivated and the red system automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-1.49

DATE: 02/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Household Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1972, requesting information pertaining to reclining type child seating systems. You describe these seats in your letter as those which allow the child to ride in a semi-recumbent posture by moving the seating surface forward while maintaining the upper back in a more or less fixed location. You state the hip of the child moves forward as a result, while the head remains in roughly the same place.

The questions you asked regarding this type of child seat are repeated below, followed by our responses.

1. Is NHTSA now testing, or does it intend to test, reclining car seats in both the upright and reclining configurations?

Paragraph S4.11.1(b) of Standard No. 213 requires that each child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the performance requirements of the standard when placed in each designed adjustment position. Consequently, reclining child seats must meet these requirements in both reclining and upright positions.

2. Is the allowed twelve-inch excursion to be measured from the reference point of the semi-recumbent dummy, or from the location of this point were the seat assumed to be upright?

The allowable forward movement of the dummy reference point is to be measured using the reference point of the semi-recumbent dummy, and the forward movement must not exceed 12 inches when measured from that point.

3. Does the NHTSA intend to make a specific statement on the requirements of reclining car seats . . .?

We believe the language of paragraph S4.11.1 of the standard to be sufficiently explicit regarding this requirement.

ID: 23658

Mr. Kenji Tanabe
Director & General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc.
1560 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Tanabe:

This responds to your letter of October 1, 2001, in which you ask about the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).

By way of background, Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems and specifies requirements for those systems to ensure their proper location and strength for the effective securing of child restraints. The required child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower bars and a tether anchorage (S3 of Standard No. 225). The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will remember to use it. The standard requires manufacturers to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to design a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)).

Your question relates to S9.5(a) of the standard, which reads:

(a) Above each bar installed pursuant to S4, the vehicle shall be permanently marked with a circle:

(1) That is not less than 13 millimeters (mm) in diameter;

(2) Whose color contrasts with its background; and

(3) That is located on each seat back such that its center is not less than 50 mm and not more than 75 mm above the bar, and in the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the center of the bar. (Emphasis added.)

The issue you raise in your letter is where the "seat back" begins for the purpose of marking the lower anchorages pursuant to S9.5(a). The term "seat back" is not defined in Standard No. 225. You state that Mitsubishi installs a type of deeply contoured, rounded seat in some of its vehicle lines. On these seats, the bottom cushion curves toward the vertical and supports a portion of an occupant's lower back before a separate "seat back" begins. You state that if the agency considers a portion of a vehicle seat to be the seat back solely by reference to a physical separation between the bottom seat cushion and the seat back, the circle markings would be more than 75 mm above the anchorage bars, which is not permitted by S9.5(a)(3). ⁽¹⁾

You suggest that the term "seat back" could be defined by reference to the point at which the bottom seat cushion curves toward the vertical direction, where it begins to support the occupant's lumbar area and lower back. You state that this would enable Mitsubishi to locate the circle markings within 75 mm of the lower anchorage bars. You believe that defining "seat back" in this manner would be logical, since the curved portion of the bottom seat cushion forms part of the occupant back support.

We agree with your position. With most seat designs, the bottom seat cushion is essentially horizontal and is a separate piece from the essentially vertical seat back. However, with the seat design you described, the separation is at a point above where the seat cushion begins to curve upward. The point at which the separation occurs, assuming there is one, should not be determinative as to what portion of the seat is the seat back. (Some vehicle seat assemblies might not have any separation between the seating surface and the seat back.) For the purpose of the marking requirements of S9.5(a) of Standard No. 225, we interpret the term "seat back" as comprising the portion of the seat that supports the occupant's lumbar area and back, including the portion of the seat that begins to angle vertically above the horizontal seating surface.

We note that Mitsubishi had raised this issue of the meaning of "seat back" in its April 19, 1999, petition for reconsideration of the final rule establishing Standard No. 225, a response to which is pending. We may amend S9.5(a)(3) of the standard to clarify the term "seat back" as used therein in accordance with the interpretation made today.

Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.1/14/02





---

1. ¹You also state that the lower anchorages themselves would have to be located in a place that will result in the child restraint being installed at a very awkward and unstable angle. Standard No. 225 has requirements that prohibit the placement of the lower bars in locations that would result in awkward child restraint installation. S15.1.2.2 of the standard (incorporating certain requirements that manufacturers may meet until 2004, as an alternative to those set forth in S9) specifies that the bottom surface of the child restraint fixture used to locate the lower anchorage bar must have attitude angles within certain limits. The angles are measured relative to the vehicle's horizontal, longitudinal and transverse reference planes). (Pitch must be 15 10, roll 0 5, and yaw 0 10.) We will be incorporating the pitch, roll and yaw requirements into S9 of the standard.