ID: nht76-2.17

DATE: 12/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 2, 1976, in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "absorbed" as it is used in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, you request that the NHTSA withdraw its earlier interpretation of the same term made on July 30, 1976, to Thomas Built Buses.

In your letter, you outline data showing that a seat may meet the energy absorbtion requirements of S5.1.3 when recoil energy is included, while failing those same requirements when recoil energy is subtracted from the total energy. You further argue that the NHTSA interpretation of July 30, 1976, which explained the subtraction of recoil energy, is at variance with the wording of the standard, because the standard does not explicitly require the subtraction of recoil energy and speaks only to the application of force upon the seat. Moreover, you suggest that plotting the recoil energy results in insufficient area under the force/deflection curve to meet S5.1.3. For these reasons, you request that the term "absorbed" be defined as the total energy received by the seat without subtracting energy that is returned through recoil.

The NHTSA declines to adopt the interpretation that you suggest. The dictionary definition of the term "absorbed" is "to receive without recoil." This definition, when applied to energy absorbed by a seat, contemplates the subtraction of recoil energy in the computation of absorbed energy. The NHTSA intentionally chose the term "absorbed" to denote exactly this meaning. Therefore, according to the common usage of the term "absorbed," the standard does require the subtraction of recoil energy even though those express words are never used.

Your assertion that plotting the recoil energy results in a force/deflection curve that falls within the prohibited zones indicates a misunderstanding of the force/deflection zone requirements. The force deflection zone requirements (S5.1.3(a), S5.1.3(b), S5.1.4(a), and S5.1.4(b)) prescribe limits within which the seats must perform only during the force application phase of the test procedure.

SINCERELY,

SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE

November 2, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On July 30, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (Item 1) defining the term "energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back" as it relates to the new FMVSS 222 School Bus Passenger Seating (Item 2). The Agency's definition of this term is based on the concept that the absorbed energy equals the amount of energy received less the energy associated with recoil.

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute representing the six major manufacturers of school buses takes exception to this terminology being applied to the present configuration of FMVSS 222. We do not disagree with the semantics but we do believe that there is a definite conflict between the definitions interpretation and the test procedures outlined within the standard.

Our disagreement is not just a recent development. As early as September 1974 through discussions with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Legal and Engineering, the SBMI indicated that a seat demonstrating purely elastic properties could be constructed to meet the then proposed FMVSS 222.

On a number of occasions since that time, this question has been reviewed by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel. Nevertheless, on January 22, 1976, the final draft of FMVSS 222 was issued without any reference to rebound or recoil adjustments to the test procedure.

Based on the FMVSS 222 test criteria, the SBMI members have designed, developed and tested an entirely new generation of school bus seats. The Thomas Interpretation drastically changes the test criteria used in compliance calculation.

FMVSS 222 Section S5.1.3 states:

Seat performance forward. When a school bus passenger seat that has another seat behind it is subjected to the application of force as specified in S5.1.3.1 and S5.1.3.2 and subsequently, the application of additional force to the seat back as specified in S.5.1.3.3 and S5.1.3.4:

(a) The seat back force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in Figure 1;

(b) Seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches; (for determination of (a) and (b) the force/deflection curve describes only the force applied through the upper loading bar, and only the forward travel of the pivot attachment point of the upper loading bar, measured from the point at which the initial application of 10 pounds of force is attained.)

(c) The seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another school bus passenger seat or restraining barrier in its originally installed position;

(d) The seat shall not separate from the vehicle at any attachment point; and

(e) Seat components shall not separate at any attachment point.

In order that we may more clearly define our objection to the Thomas Interpretation, a typical force/deflection seat test is enclosed (Item 3).

The shaded areas above and below the acceptable zone indicate a seat that is too rigid (upper shaded zone) or too limber (lower shaded zone) to manage the accident induced impacts. Therefore, the force/deflection characteristics properly designed seat will fall within the unshaded area.

Line A plotted on the force deflection curve (Item 3) indicates the amount of seat back deflection for a given loading.

Prior to the Thomas Interpretation line A would be a satisfactory test.

S5.1.3

(a) The curve fell within the specified zone

(b) The seat back deflection did not exceed 14"

(c) The seat did not encroach to within 4" of an adjacent seat

(d) The seat did not separate from the vehicle

(e) The seat components did not separate

The area below line A was above the minimums set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Should the Thomas Interpretation be applied to this same seat test, the results are entirely different (Item 4). The new interpretation will require that the recoil of the seat after testing be measured and plotted on the graph-line B.

S5.1.3

(a) The curve fell within the shaded area

The area included within lines "A" and "B" is less than the limit allowed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This example outlines one area of conflict between FMVSS 222 and the Thomas Interpretation. FMVSS 222 makes no mention of measuring and plotting rebound, as a matter of fact the test criteria requires only forward motion of the loading bar during the forward test and rearward motion during the rearward test.

The SMBI is now to the point of product verification based on the final draft of FMVSS 222. To revise the test levels at this late date will place an unjust economic burden on this industry.

If it is the Agency's intention to have school bus seats that "eat up" a given amount of energy during a crash, then this requirement should be spelled out within the standard and not within a private interpretation.

Because of the wide reaching effects of this interpretation, we ask that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withdraw the Thomas Interpretation and in its place introduce a proposal to revise FMVSS 222 to include the Agency's definition of energy absorption.

If we can be of any assistance in clarifying this matter please feel free to contact me.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ITEM 2

(Illegible Line) and Crash Protection FMVSS 222 Effective April 1, 1977

(Regulation Omitted)

ID: 15091.ogm

Mr. Jerry Roberts
Application Specialist
Vehicle Safety Systems
601 N.W. 25th Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1997, concerning a seat belt system you have designed. You asked us to evaluate whether the design would comply with S7.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The opinion provided below is based on the facts provided in your letter.

As described in your letter, the seat belt assembly at issue is a Type 2 assembly intended for use in forward-facing rear seats in conversion vans. The lower end of the belt is attached to the vehicle floor and the upper end is attached to a retractor mounted on the roof support. The belt itself is fed through a crescent shaped slot in a mounting plate fixed to the roof rail. This crescent shaped slot allows the belt to assume different positions relative to a seat occupant depending on the height at which the belt is latched when fastened. The arc described by the crescent shaped slot is "preferably at least 5 cm longer than the width of the webbing."

Standard No. 208 was amended in a final rule published on

August 3, 1994, (59 FR 39472) to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. S7.1.2.1 of Standard 208 reads as follows:

As an alternative to meeting the requirement of S7.1.2, a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to either the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt. The distance between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point of the webbing and the anchorage at the extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

According to your letter, the crescent-shaped slot located in the guide plate near the upper anchorage automatically moves the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage when the belt is latched around different sized users. This guide plate, which attaches to vehicle structure at the roof rail, is also an anchorage. S3 of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines a seat belt anchorage as "...any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, attachment hardware ..."

If the distance, measured linearly, between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point with the guide plate at the extreme adjustment positions is greater than five centimeters, it appears that your design would meet the requirement of S7.1.2.1. However, as an alternative means of providing the adjustment specified in S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1 requires that a Type 2 assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso and lap belts. If, in operation, the system you have designed does not automatically move the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage to accommodate occupants, the system you have designed would not meet S7.1.2.1. I note, however, that NHTSA is not able to make such a determination from looking at your drawings. Any determination of compliance would require testing of the system as installed in a vehicle.

NHTSA compliance testing has also revealed that guide plates, d-rings and other guiding devices can tear or sever webbing under the severe loads experienced in an impact. The guide plates incorporated in your design should therefore be constructed in a fashion which will minimize this risk.

You should also be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30122, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. Compliance with applicable standards does not relieve the manufacturer of responsibility in the event a defect exists.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:7/10/97

ID: nht67-1.32

DATE: 06/14/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 10, 1967, clarifying the intent of your petition for reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, and seeking a review of Order No. 12, dated March 29, 1967, denying your petition.

At your request I have reviewed your petition for reconsideration and wish to(Illegible Word) for the record, as you have asked, that your company did not seek to be relieved from the requirements of Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to provide upper(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages in addition to those required by the standard. After reviewing Order No. 12, I have concluded that with respect to your company the order was intended as a(Illegible Words) paragraph(Illegible Words) is unnecessary, however, for the reason that Standard No. 210(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) anchorages in addition to those required in paragraph 4.1. The location criteria for the anchorages as outlined in accordance with paragraph 4.1, and not to any additional anchorages provided by the manufacturer.

I believe the foregoing interpretation will enable your company to continue its practice of furnishing additional(Illegible Word) restraint anchorages on the(Illegible Words) large persons(Illegible Words) you have further questions concerning the(Illegible Word) please do not(Illegible Word) to let me know. MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator United States Department of Transportation

I have Dr. Haddon's letter of April 4, 1967, enclosing a copy of your order of denial regarding our petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 210, dated March 3, 1967.

It is important to indicate that it was not the intention of our petition to request relief from the requirement of Standard No. 210 (S 4.3.2.1) as stated in Order No. 12 issued on March 29. Our request was simply that Standard No. 210 be amended to allow a second upper torso restraint anchorage point -- in addition to an anchorage point complying with Standard No. 210 -- in order that such an additional point be available for persons of unuaually large body dimensions.

I think it important that the record clearly show that Mercedes-Benz of North America did not seek relief from Standard No. 210, but rather sought permission to comply with the Standard and at the same time provide for optimum restraint and comfort of persons of unusually large size. It has been standard practice in our company to furnish at least two upper torso restraint anchorages when they are mounted in the B--pillar of sedans and we sought in our March 3, 1967 petition to continue this practice.

Inasmuch as the relief denied in Order No. 12 is not the relief sought by Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., I would greatly appreciate your reviewing the Order in the hope that since we comply with Standard No. 210 the inclusion of an additional anchorage would be allowed to enhance the safety and comfort of unusually large persons.

Sincerely,

PEUGEOT, INC.

May 26, 1967

Mr. O'Mahoney National Traffic Safety Agency

Regarding our telephone conversation of May 26, I am in need of legal interpretation concerning Standards 208 and 210.

According to Standard 208, paragraph S3.1.1, Type 2 seat belt assembly should be installed in each outboard passenger car in the front seat position, including the windshield, within the impact area, which, in my mind includes the front seats only. Thus, the rear seats should have only Type 1 (lap belt).

From Standard 210, table 1, it seems to clearly indicate that we must have seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt in outboard seats in the rear, but it does not expressly state that the Type 2 seat belts should be installed in the outboard seats in the rear.

Would you kindly let me know if my interpretation is correct: on a 4-passenger car, we should have Type 2 seat belts in the front, Type 1 seat belts in the rear, but anchorages in the rear for Type 2 and Type 1 seat belts.

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

Henri B. Combe Executive Vice President

ID: aiam0753

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972, in which yo requested our interpretation of the phrase in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 which states that the angle of the belt is to be measured from the seating reference point to the 'nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage'.; The language in question was adopted in response to petitions fo reconsideration of the amended rule as published in 1970 (35 F.R. 15293, 35 F.R. 18116). Several petitioners had stated that measuring the angle from the seating reference point to the anchorage, as the standard then specified, would not accurately reflect the true angle of the belt because of the intervention of rigid attachment hardware between the anchorage and the webbing. The section was therefore amended to refer to the point at which the belt touched such attachment hardware.; In the diagram which you provide of a seat belt system in which th buckle is attached to the seat by means of a rigid bracket, we would consider the buckle itself to be a part of the attaching hardware. The contact point would therefore lie on the interface between the tongue and the buckle at the point nearest the seating reference point.; It does not appear from Figures 2 and 3 of your letter that any of th designated angles correspond exactly to the angle that should be measured under S4.3.1.3. In both figures the angle would be determined by the line between the reference point and the nearest point to it on the forward end of the buckle.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this point. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0438

Dear Mr. Boschetti: We appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the questions yo raised during our visit of June 9 and 10. I will try to answer each question as fully as possible.; 1. It would be unfortunate if the effect of our standards on domesti passenger car production in Europe is to raise costs to the point where significant numbers of people are forced to rely on cheaper and more dangerous vehicles such as motor driven cycles. However, we do not think this result likely in the light of the continuing demand for inexpensive passengers cars and in the absence of legislation by the European nations to compel adoption of the costlier safety features.; 2. We are aware of the concern of foreign manufacturers with th effects of the standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will attempt to be as flexible as possible, consistent with its mandate to insure the safety of vehicles sold in the United States. The discretion allowed the agency to exempt vehicles from a standard is a matter that Congress will have to decide. At the present time, the exemption authority given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the 1966 Act has expired, and we are therefore unable to agree to any exemptions unless Congress chooses to recreate the exemption authority in some form.; 3. In the development of standards, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration attempts to evaluate their effects on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers. As you are aware, it is sometimes not possible to reconcile all points of view on a standard, but we would urge you to make every effort to set forth your position on proposed rules during the comment period.; 4,5. Your comments on the proper height for bumpers and the problem o the license plate location have been considered in the context of the rulemaking on Standard No. 215. The amendment issued on June 22, 1971, should serve to lessen the height problem to some degree, and on the basis of present data we regard the height thereby established as reasonable for the overall vehicle population. The shape of the license plate itself is determined by the individual states and is not within our authority.; 6. The crash characteristics which you suggest for a vehicle's fron end seem reasonable, but because they fall beyond the scope of the present rulemaking on Standard No. 215, any consideration of them will have to be deferred. Although we realize that the front seats can supplement the side structure of a car in a side impact, the question as to whether the seats should be retained was considered in the development of the final version of Standard No. 214, and it was determined at that time that the standard would provide a more reliable measure of side strength if the tests were conducted with the seats removed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still of that opinion, although it would consider any additional information presented in support of a petition to amend the standard to allow retention of the seats.; 7. On the subject of prospective standards, the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration is currently preparing a new version of the program plan for motor vehicle safety standards. The plan is intended to map the course of rulemaking for the next several years, and should serve to answer most of your questions on timing. We expect to announce the new plan in the very near future.; I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. If not, or i additional questions arise, do not hesitate to ask us.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: aiam3611

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:#This responds to your letter concerning Safet Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmissions Braking Effect*. You asked whether a 5-speed automatic transmission which you are considering producing meets the requirement of section S3.1.1 that a neutral position be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions.#By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.#In reference to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the relevant question is whether, in accordance with the above requirement, there is a neutral position between the HD (highway drive) and R (reverse) positions. As explained below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is yes.#Your letter states that 'the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark 'N' is shown.' Further, your letter indicates that 'the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ('N' position) whenever the lever is left free on that line.'#In shifting between HD and R, the lever must cross the horizontal line. We understand that if the lever is merely held on the horizontal line at the crossing point, i.e., the extreme right, the transmission will be in neutral. Further, we understand that if the lever is left free in that position, it will return to the center of the horizontal line where it will remain in neutral. Based on these two understandings, it is our opinion that the extreme right crossing point constitutes a neutral position between the HD and R positions.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: nht88-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: PAUL ULTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, requests your interpretation of how the requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to a belt system Subaru would like to offer as standard equipment on its U.S. station wagon models, beginning in m id-model year 1989. This system is a manual, single-loop, 3-point (combination lap-shoulder) belt for use at the rear outboard seating positions.

Subaru currently offers a manual lap belt at the rear outboard positions of our station wagons. The belt system that we would like to offer is now used in European versions of these autos. It has a single-point buckle mechanism and is automatically adjustable. The upper anchorage for this European belt is located outside the FMVSS 210 "approved range", but within the ECE Regulation No. 14 "permitted area". (See enclosed Figures 1 and 2.) n1

n1 The vehicles in question have an additional upper anchorage located in the U.S. approved range, as required by FMVSS 210. However, the European belt system cannot directly be used with the U.S. anchorage, due to the need for additional bolt holes to accommodate the European belt and its retractor.

It is our view that the installation of the European-type belt in the ECE anchorage is permitted under the various FMVSSs. The European system qualifies as a "Type 2 belt assembly", as required in FMVSS 208. The European belt assembly is certified t o meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 by the belt manufacturer. The anchorages required under FMVSS 210 (including the current upper anchorage in the U.S. approved range) would continue to be provided. Therefore, we believe all the explicit requirements of these standards would continue to be met.

The minimum FMVSS seat belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions provide for lap belts and an additional upper anchorage (in a specified location). The upper anchorage is included to permit owner retrofit of a 3-point belt system, if desi red. Under our proposal, we would continue to provide these items. In addition, Subaru would voluntarily provide the shoulder portion of the belt and an additional anchorage. We believe the additional, voluntarily provided, items should not be subject to regulation, so long as they do not impair the functioning of any required safety equipment. We do not believe that the additional upper anchorage and shoulder belt section will in any way impair the operation of the lap belt section. To the contrar y, we believe that the additional items will provide further safety benefits. Permitting use of the European-type belt and anchorage would enable Subaru to provide U.S. vehicle purchasers with the benefits of three point restraint in an automatically adj ustable system at the earliest possible date. Requiring the use of an upper anchorage within the U.S. acceptable range would result in delay while anchorage and/or belt modifications are engineered and implemented.

In order for Subaru to begin offering the proposed belt system by mid-model year 1989 (e.g., to arrange for the necessary supplies of belt systems), we would need to receive your response to this letter no later than November 1, 1988. Therefore, we r equest your expeditious consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

FIGURE 1

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

FIGURE 2

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

ID: nht88-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Harris W. Fawell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell House of Representatives Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bu s.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those wit h a gross vehicle weight' rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

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

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

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle... " (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that 5402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get inform ation on Illinois' S402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin E. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: aiam4492

"Dear Mr. Ohdaira: This responds to your December 16, 1987 lette asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to 'swivel type front seats' installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position. Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel sets for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward- facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that 'meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat' since the capability of the seats to face rearward is 'just a secondary function.' You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to be forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats. Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the 'secondary' or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . T he lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S4.1.2 shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to 571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to 572.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male, with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . (Emphasis added.) The quoted reference to seat 'position' in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation, including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occupants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions. In your letter, you suggested two possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting unless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would be not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints. Your second suggestion was to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was 'in park.' This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard passenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion. In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to meet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupied in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of S4.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 3042yy

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emission & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
41050 Vincenti Court
Novi, Michigan 48375

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows:

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

You noted, however, that "(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.l.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'" You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding.

In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to "passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the [SID] dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7." Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214.

With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle.

I hope you find this information 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 /ref:214 d:6/25/9l