ID: nht91-4.28

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Takashi Odaira to P.J. Rice (OCC 5987)

TEXT:

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 S7.1.3(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.

ID: nht73-3.10

DATE: 01/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1972, concerning the definition of "head impact area" in 49 CFR 571.3(b).

Your question is whether the lower portion of the dashboard depicted in your letter is within the head impact area. Without knowing the interior dimensions of the vehicle, we cannot give you a definite answer. We can, however, describe the circumstances under which the lower part of the dash might be within the head impact area.

Under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the definition, the test device is pivoted forward about specified centers until it contacts the vehicle. These contact points, which together comprise the head impact area, are divided into two groups, those above the lower line of the windshield glass (paragraph (b)), and those below (paragraph (c)). Although the measurement of the head impact area is a continuous process, the separation of the contact points into two groups was accomplished by paragraphs that are not parallel in structure. This has caused some confusion.

The intent of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition might have been expressed in a single paragraph, reading as follows:

With the pivot point to "top-of-head" dimension at each value allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, pivot the measuring device from a vertical position forward and downward through

all arcs in vertical planes to 90 degrees each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.

In our opinion it would be appropriate for you to employ this procedure to determine whether any part of the lower dash pad in your drawing falls within the head impact area. The goal of your evaluation would be to determine whether it is possible for the test device to be pivoted downward so that it contacts the lower pad without first contacting the upper pad. If at a particular point the device contacts the upper pad, and if the device is at its minimum length of 29 inches and its pivot point is on the seating reference point, then the area of the lower pad directly beneath that contact point would not be contactable and would not be a part of the head impact area. If, however, there is a point at which the head form in its downward arc would miss the upper pad and contact the lower pad, the lower pad would at that point be within the head impact area. It is quite possible that some points on the lower pad would be within the head impact area, while others would not.

ID: nht79-3.48

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 18, 1979, letter asking to what extent the parallelepiped device required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must fit inside a school bus in order to provide the mandated "unobstructed passage."

The agency responded to a request similar to yours in 1976. A copy of that interpretation is included for your information. The essence of that interpretation is that while conducting the test in accordance with S5.4.2.1(a) of the standard, the parallelepiped device must, at a minimum, fit inside a bus so that the device's outside edge is flush with the lower outside edge of the bus body. If your bus complies with this interpretation of the standard, it would be in compliance.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

May 18, 1979

Joseph Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section S5.4.2.1(a) of FMVSS 217, Bus Retention and Release, requires that the rear emergency door opening of a school bus be large enough to provide the unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped.

Will the condition illustrated on the enclosed sketch satisfy this requirement? The following applies to this sketch: The rectangular parallelepiped is of the prescribed dimensions, surface "A" is totally within the outline of the body except for the top portion where the body contour slopes forward. The forward side of the rectangular parallelepiped (the side opposite surface "A") is totally inside of the body and contacts the rearmost surface of the passenger seats.

An early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

SURFACE 'A'

Wayne Corporation An Indian Head Company Wayne Transportation Division Richmond, Indiana

DATE: 5-11-79

SCHOOL BUS REAR EMERGENCY DOOR OPENING PASSAGE (Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam3278

Dear Mr. Halper: This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, asking severa questions about Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc.; I would first like to correct an apparent misunderstanding you hav about remarks made by Mr. Hitchcock in a meeting with you and Mr. Richard Hyde of Strolee. Mr. Hitchcock's remarks were to the effect that the agency encouraged beneficial innovations in child restraints and would be receptive to amending the standard to remove any restrictions to beneficial innovations. Any amendments to the standard would be made in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The agency does not engage in 'ad hoc' rulemaking procedures.; The following are the responses to the fourteen questions you asked. 1. You asked how the minimum surface area requirements set in sectio 5.2.2 for the sides and back of child restraints are to be measured. You were specifically concerned about measuring 'curved surfaces, without some guidelines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained.' The area's measurements can be determined by positioning the appropriate test dummy in the restraint. The area within the dummy's outline projected directly rearward and the areas within the dummy's torso outline projected directly sideward must comply with the minimum surface area for the back and sides of the restraint.; 2. You are correct that section S5.2.2.1(c) only requires a minimu radius of curvature and does not establish a minimum surface area for fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child. The agency encourages manufacturers to utilize designs with large surface areas at least equivalent to the shield designs incorporated in some current restraints.; 3. You asked whether shoulder belt grommets are prohibited by sectio 5.2.3.2. In response to Strolee's petition for rulemaking on section 5.2.3.2, the agency has amended the section to permit the use of grommets that comply with the protrusion limitation requirements of section 5.2.4.; 4. You raised a question about whether section 5.4.3.3 requires the us of a five-point belt system. The agency's intent was to allow the use of hybrid systems, which for example, might use upper torso restraints, a crotch strap and a shield instead of a lap belt. Thus, the agency provided in section 5.4.3.3(c) that a crotch strap must connect to the 'lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso.' The agency established the minimum radius of curvature requirements of section 5.2.2.1(c) to ensure that any surface used in place of a lap or other belt would not concentrate forces on a limited area of the child's body. The recent notice on the standard, appearing in the Federal Register of May 1, 1980, amends the standard to clarify section 5.4.3.3.; 5. You objected to the buckle force requirements set in section 5.4.3. as being too high. The goal of that section is to prevent young children from opening the buckles while ensuring that adults can do so. As explained in the December 1979 final rule, section 5.4.3.4 is based on research done by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Institute. The research showed that young children could not open a buckle requiring a release force of 12 or more pounds, but could open buckles requiring a lower release force. That same research found that buckles requiring a release force greater than 20 pounds would be difficult for adult women to open. The agency is not aware of any research contradicting the Swedish study and no commenter to the docket submitted any data showing that the Swedish study is inaccurate.; 6. You asked for an interpretation of the words 'integral' an 'position' as those words are used in section 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines 'integral' as meaning 'formed as a unit with another part.' Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.; The word 'position' was also used in its common dictionary sense t mean put in place or arrange. Thus during the test, each movable surface will be put into place in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. The positioning requirements only apply to the arrangement of the movable surface and does not permit the attachment of any belts that are not an integral part of the movable surface.; 7. You stated section 6.1.2.4 is inconsistent with S6.1.2.3.1 an 6.1.2.3.2 because 6.1.2.4. supposedly allows attachment of the restraint system's belts, while sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 do not allow belts to be attached that are not an integral part of a fixed or movable surface.; Your interpretation is not correct. Section 6.1.2.4 sets specification for tightening the restraint system's belts, prior to the sled test. However, both sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 provide that the belt adjustment requirements of section 6.1.2.4 are not to apply to belts that are not an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.; 8. You asked how the agency defined 'target point' as that term is use in section 5.1.3.2. Section 5.1.3.2 requires that 'no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head' shall pass through two specified planes during the sled test. The agency used the term 'target point' to refer to the center of the target on the side of the test dummy's head. THe location of the target is specified in the engineering drawing incorporated in part 572, *Anthropomorphic Test Dummies*, Subpart C.; 9. You asked whether the standard establishes strength specification for belts. Section 5.4 establishes performance requirements that the belt systems used in child restraint systems must meet. The section does not establish specific breaking strengths for the belts, other than the requirement in section 5.4.1(a) that after being subjected to 'the abrasion requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, the belts must have a breaking strength of not less that 75 percent of the strength of the unabraided webbing....' Of course, belts which are to be attached during testing must not break during the test if the effect of the breakage is to cause a violation of section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.; 10. You expressed concern about 'the difficulty in running qualit control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) only authorizes the agency to issue requirements that are as performance oriented as possible. The Act places responsibility on a manufacturer to devise its own specifications which will ensure that its product performs as required.; 11. You asked our opinion whether the Waterbury buckle complies wit Standard No. 213. THe agency does not issue opinions as to whether a particular design does or does not comply with the requirements of a standard. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers must certify that they comply with all applicable federal standards.; 12. We have answered your questions concerning the use of soft foa armrests or trays in our earlier letter of April 17, 1980.; 13. You asked whether 'a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some othe portion of the car seat must comply with the tension (sic) requirements of section 5.4.3.5. That section provides that 'Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall' meet specified buckle release requirements. Since a crotch strap is used in a child restraint system to restrain the child, a buckle used with the crotch strap must comply with the requirements of section 5.4.3.5.; 14. You raised a question about the safety of buckles that 'do not sna or latch, but rather require the turn of a knob to seal them together.' Your concern is that the knob may not be fully turned and thus the buckle may not be fully latched. Any buckle, regardless of its specific design must comply with the release requirements of section 5.4.3.5. In the preamble to the December 1979 final rule, the agency encouraged manufacturers to use push button buckles, similar to those used in automobile belts, so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies. Use of push button buckles would also solve the potential problems of incomplete latching that may be associated with knob-type buckles.; If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2760

Dear Mr. Burnett: This responds to your January 18, 1978, letter asking several question about the applicability of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, to several vehicle components that you submitted.; First you ask whether padded material used for the top portion of dashboard would be considered to fall within the ambit of the standard. As you stated in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that a dashboard is considered a front panel and is included within the components subject to the standard. Therefore, since the padding you propose to use on the top of the dashboard constitutes part of the dashboard it is required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.; In your second question you ask whether the same material mentioned i question 1 would be required to comply with the standard when used as a seat cushion. Paragraph S4.1, which lists the components covered by the standard, specifically includes seat cushions. Therefore, any material used for this purpose is required to comply with the standard.; In regard to both of the above questions, you ask whether a dashboar or seat cushion consisting of vinyl stitched at varying intervals to padding would be subject to two tests - one for the vinyl and one for the padding. Paragraph S4.2.1 states that: 'any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S5.3 when tested separately.' When the vinyl is stitched to the padding in the manner outlined in your letter, the vinyl does not adhere to the material at every point of contact. Accordingly, the materials must be tested separately.; Your questions 3 and 4 require no response since the materials to whic you refer must be tested separately, not as composite materials.; In your question 5, you correctly state that the two top material would be required to be tested separately. If as installed in the vehicle the third layer of material would fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment, then it too would be tested in accordance with the requirements. It does not matter that this material would not be within 1/2 inch of the surface when the stitching is removed for testing of each component separately. In a related question you ask whether the stitching itself would be tested. Since the stitching is part of the seat cushion, it is subject to the requirements and since it does not adhere at every point of contact, it should be tested separately. From the standpoint of practicality, however, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner, and is usually simply tested as part of the material itself.; Finally you submitted a section of headlining material and questio whether it would be required to comply with the requirements. This material falls within the list of components covered by the standard and, therefore, must comply with all of the requirements. The material that you submitted is composed of two layers joined at every point of contact and would be tested as a composite material.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 210341.ogm

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager
Compliance and Technical Liason
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405-A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed new vehicle would qualify as a light truck for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) purposes under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). As described in your letter, the vehicle, which is now in the design stage, would have one of two different configurations. Both configurations share certain common attributes: the vehicle would have five seating positions and two rows of seats with two bucket seats in the front row and a seating assembly providing three seating positions in the second row. After certain operations are performed involving the rear seats, either configuration could provide cargo carrying capacity in which the space occupied by the rear seats would be replaced by a load floor angled approximately two to three degrees from the horizontal. The two designs differ in the means by which the vehicle is converted from the passenger carrying to cargo carrying mode.

Your letter states that the first configuration involves a two-step conversion process. The first step consists of removing the rear seat cushions from the vehicle without the use of any special tools. The second step consists of unlocking the rear seat backs and folding them forward over the space formerly occupied by the rear seat cushions. When the rear seat back is folded forward in this fashion, a flat load bearing floor is created that extends rearward to the rear of the vehicle from the forwardmost mounting point of the removed seat cushions.

The second configuration described in your letter uses a sliding seat back to create the cargo area. As is the case with the first configuration, the lower rear seat cushions would be removed from the vehicle without the use of special tools. Instead of being folded forward, the rear seat back would then be unlocked and slid forward on tracks until it is located immediately behind the front seat backs. After the rear seat back is moved forward, sliding floor pieces attached to the rear seat back would be moved forward from a stowage area under the rear cargo floor or a parcel shelf piece would be manually placed over the open space created by the removal of the rear seat cushions.

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 NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed vehicle would not qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5(a)(5) provides:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" divides automobiles into two categories, "passenger automobiles" and automobiles other than passenger automobiles. Section 32901(16) of Chapter 329 defines passenger automobile as an automobile that is manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals, but does not include an automobile capable of off-highway operation. Accordingly, any automobile that is not, by statute or regulation, a passenger automobile, is a non-passenger automobile.

In order to provide vehicle definitions required for administration of the CAFE program, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in December of 1976 (41 FR 55368). The agency proposal sought to add a new part to volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 523, and contained a detailed analysis of what characteristics it was considering for use in establishing vehicle classifications. In order to properly define these vehicles, the agency examined both the text and the legislative history of the predecessor to Chapter 329, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA). NHTSA concluded that a proper reading of MVICSA and its history indicated that for the purposes of fuel economy passenger vehicles are vehicles that are intended primarily for the transportation of individuals. Vehicles not primarily intended for the transportation of individuals would properly be classified as "non-passenger automobiles." (41 FR 55369)

In examining the spectrum of vehicles then in use, NHTSA noted that certain classes of vehicles might serve both as passenger and non-passenger vehicles at the same time. One of these classes of mixed use vehicles included vans that might be used for transporting both passengers or cargo.

At the time, these vans were constructed on heavy duty truck-like chassis and possessed significant interior volume that gave them carrying capacities similar to, or greater than, contemporary pickup trucks. Noting that these vehicles often had seats that could be easily removed to provide such cargo carrying capacity, the agency observed that vehicles whose design permits easy conversion by removal of the seats to accommodate more than one primary function are not manufactured primarily to transport individuals (41 FR 55370).

The agency noted, however, that although station wagons built on passenger car chassis could be converted to another use by fold-down seats, this characteristic would not be sufficient to remove these vehicles from the passenger car category. Because the seats remain permanently installed, the additional cargo space that is made available when the seats are folded is significantly smaller than that made available when the seats are removed. Furthermore, NHTSA observed that station wagons were built on passenger car chassis rather than truck chassis and did not have load carrying abilities comparable to vans (41 FR 55370).

Your letter does not indicate whether the vehicle you are designing is built on a truck or a passenger car chassis. We note however, that under both configurations that you are currently considering, that only a portion of the rear seat is removed from the vehicle and that the rear seatback is either folded or slid forward to create the cargo area within the vehicle. In both instances a significant portion of the rear seat structure remains inside the vehicle, occupying space that otherwise might be used for cargo. Therefore, while a portion of the seat is removed to increase the vehicle's cargo carrying capacity, a portion of the rear seat structure remains permanently attached to the vehicle. The presence of this seat structure and the reduced cargo carrying capacity that results from the seat back remaining in the vehicle indicate that the vehicle should be classified as a passenger car rather than a non passenger light truck under Part 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed vehicle for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.3/21/00

ID: aiam4674

"Dear Mr. Sims: This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Rober Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses. The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: '... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.' Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arrangement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion. Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation 'Emergency Exit.' In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver's seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent. Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit. We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed. Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit designation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high 'at the top of or directly above the emergency exit' is designed to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here. The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit 'markings' be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit 'markings' referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as well. As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that 'each marking shall be legible ...' (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term 'marking.' Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the term 'marking' and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word 'markings' refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1. If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 07-007541as

ID: nht88-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. H owever, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual s afety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passeng er vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reas ons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. Stat e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pro per use of the manual safety belts reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic pr otection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection syst ems, and 4 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 1989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in c ompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle s afety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr . Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Am ericans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 18,1987

To: Ms. Nancy F. Miller, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

RE: Dr. Morgan has contracted my office regarding his wish to have passive restraining system presently installed in his car replaced with a 3-point seatbelt system.

Would you please review the attached and reply to the concerns/questions which this constituent has brought to my attention? This matter has also been referred to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

PLEASE RESPOND TO ME AT: 380 Alvarado Street Montrey, California 93940 (408) 649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

DATE: Dec. 8, 1987

STAFF MEMBER: KWC

CONSTITUENT'S NAME: Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

ADDRESS: 351-D Western Dr. Santa Cruz, CA 95060

PHONE: 408 / 429-4382 area code

INFORMATION REQUESTED: (be specific)

Dr. Morgan purchased a new car, and would like information on how he can get the passive seatbelt restraints replaced with the 3-point seatbelt system that was formerly used in pre-1988 cars.

Dr. Morgan states that he bought a 1987 1/2 Saab 900-S coupe. When he viewed the car, it had the 3-point seatbelt system. Dr. Morgan ordered the car, and by the time his car arrived, the new models with passive seatbelt restraints were being manufactured . Dr. Morgan has learned

that these new type of restraints are being ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Dr. Morgan feels that these passive restraints are hazardous and cumbersome. He wrote to the President of Saab, and was told that the company was only complying with a Federal order.

Therefore, Dr. Morgan would like to know what he must do in order to legally remove the passive restraints and have the 3-point seatbelt system he prefers installed.

ID: aiam4627

"Dear Mr. Mitchell: This responds to your letter asking us to reasses our previous interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Before turning to the substance of your letter, I would like to apologize for the regrettable delay in this response. You asked us to reassess a December 20, 1984 letter to Mr. Melvin Smith regarding school buses. Mr. Smith had, among other things, asked for an interpretation of the concluding sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 217. Section S5.4.2.1(b) requires side emergency doors installed in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have an opening that is at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide when the side door is extended. The final sentence of S5.4.2.1(b) reads: 'A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' Mr. Smith had asked how much, if any, forward and/or rearward variation from perfect coincidence of the plane and door edge were permissible. We responded that no variation from the explicit requirements of the standard is permissible. Your letter stated that a requirement for an exact coincidence of the plane and door edge 'opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements,' and is 'an extremely difficult goal to meet.' You stated that requiring an exact relationship between a part of the seat and the door will require multiple seat installation adjustments, bending the seat, or deforming the seat padding. To avoid such burdens, you asked if the agency would consider setting tolerances for the coincidence of the points expressed in this provision. You proposed the following interpretation of the requirement for coincidence of the plane and door edge: 1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening. 2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening. It would be helpful to set forth some background information to fully explain why NHTSA cannot issue an intepretation along the lines you have suggested. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392, the Safety Act) specifies that NHTSA shall establish by order appropriate safety standards and that the Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard. The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to publish a notice setting forth the proposed change to a safety standard, and allow the public to comment thereon, before the agency can adopt any change to the established safety standard. Please note that the Safety Act requires public notice and comment only when adopting orders that establish, amend, or revoke a safety standard. Interpretations are not subject to the requirements for public notice and comment, because interpretations do not add, delete, or change any requirements established in a safety standard. Instead, intepretations explain how the requirements established in safety standards or the Safety Act apply to particular vehicles or equipment, or otherwise clarify the meaning of the established requirements. In this case, the meaning of the requirement in Standard No. 217 that 'a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear-most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door' is clear. This language clearly and unequivocally requires an exact coincidence of the location of the seat back and the forward edge of a side emergency door. There is no way that we can interpret this language in accordance with your suggestion, i.e., that the seat back shall be located no more than 1 and 1/2 inches forward of the forward edge of the emergency door. Your letter suggested a change to the requirements of Standard No. 217, not a clarification of those requirements. As explained above, the only way by which we can change those requirements is to initiate rulemaking and give the public notice of and the opportunity to comment on the proposed change. Hence, your letter asking for an interpretation would have been more properly filed as a petition for rulemaking, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 552. Ordinarily, we would simply notify you of your right to file such a petition and take no further action unless and until you decided to file such a petition. In this case, however, the delay in this response may have conveyed the erroneous impression that NHTSA would provide a substantive response to your request in this interpretation. To ensure that your request receives a response addressing its merits, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking filed under Part 552. We will notify you of our response to the petition as soon as we have completed our review of it. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";