ID: aiam3675

Dear Sirs: This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that you d not have to install seat belts on a sofa/bed used in your van conversions if you place a 'disclaimer' on the sofa to indicate that it is not to be considered a seat while the vehicle is in motion.; Your assumption is incorrect. You must install seat belts on these sof seats. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, requires the installation of either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (combination lap and shoulder belts) belts at each designated seating position in a van, including rear-most seats. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, 'designated seating position' is defined as,; >>>'any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at leas as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multi-purpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.'<<<; In our opinion, a sofa seat in the rear of a van is likely to be use as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and, therefore, is a designated seating position. The fact that the seat converts to a bed is irrelevant. This will not prevent passengers from using the position for seating when the accommodation is in its unconverted, sofa mode.; A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities associated with designated seating position simply by placing a sticker on the seat disclaiming that the position is to be used. If this were the case, manufacturers would be able to place stickers on all seats in vehicles and avoid the requirements for seat belts entirely. It is true that Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, requires seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion to be conspicuously labeled to that effect (paragraph S4.4). However, this labeling requirement is only applicable to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. For example, folding jump seats are not considered designated seating positions under the definition. Therefore, these seats should be labeled as required by Standard No. 207.; In our opinion, you would be able to omit seat belts in this case onl if the structure was a permanent, stationary bed which could not be converted into a sofa. Also, please note that under the definition of designated seating position, you would be required to install at least three sets of seat belts if the sofa has hip room greater than 50 inches.; I hope this has eliminated any misunderstanding you may have ha concerning this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2739

Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your October 16, 1977, letter requesting again tha the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reinterpret its 20-inch measurement of occupant seat spacing in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Mr. Levin indicated in an earlier response to your letter that sea spacing is measured at the point of greatest distance separating the seats. This measurement is used to ensure that impact forces do not exceed the forces the seat is designed to sustain or absorb. To measure as you suggest would require redesigning school bus seats to ensure their ability to sustain or absorb increased impact loads.; The NHTSA has received a number of complaints on seat spacing in schoo buses manufactured in compliance with the subject regulations. We have met with most of the major school bus manufacturers discussing production seat spacings and the Federal requirements. The agency has found that manufacturers are producing buses with seat spacings which are, in some cases, 3 inches less than the maximum specified by the regulations. These large reductions in seat spacing result principally from manufacturers' choices in designing the seats. Such seat spacing reductions are not found in all seats designed to meet the regulations.; Through its monitoring of the standard's implementation, the NHTSA ha discovered that manufacturers are not achieving the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the time the regulation was issued. The installation of seats in school buses cannot be done with the precision that the NHTSA had anticipated. Accordingly, manufacturers in their attempts to ensure that they do not violate the 20-inch space requirement must design seat spacing as much as an inch short of the 20-inch spacing allowance. The result is seat spacing which is less than the agency contemplated. The NHTSA has taken expeditious action to alleviate this problem.; On December 20, 1977, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule amendin Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 by increasing the maximum allowable distance from the seating reference point to the seat back from 20 to 21 inches. The agency intended that the measurement be approximately 20 inches. A seat spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20- inch spacing by taking manufacturing tolerances into account. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing this change in the rule was also issued on December 20, 1977.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: 77-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, petition to amend Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In your petition you request that the NHTSA withdraw the requirements for seat belts in buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Secondly, you suggest that the NHTSA reconsider the validity of establishing 10,000 pounds GVWR as the dividing line between buses that must be equipped with seat belts and those which need not be so equipped. The NHTSA denies your requested rulemaking.

The NHTSA mandated the installation of seat belts in school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, because these vehicles are subject to different crash pulses than larger school buses under the same accident circumstances. To ensure adequate protection for children transported in these vehicles, the NHTSA applied to small school buses some of the seating requirements mandated for larger buses plus the installation of seat belts. Since we are aware of no data indicating that small buses do not need the additional protection provided by seat belts, the NHTSA considers the necessary safety requirement.

The second recommendation in your petition suggests that the NHTSA classification of vehicles into two groups, one with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less and another with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, is arbitrary. You indicate that a vehicle weighing slightly more than 10,000 pounds will not react in a crash situation significantly different than a vehicle slightly under 10,000 pounds. Accordingly, you suggest that there is no valid reason to have different requirements for buses within a relatively narrow weight range.

The NHTSA has historically classified vehicles into the two weight groupings you mention. This has been done in part because there are significant differences between large and small vehicles with respect to their reactions in crashes. The agency realizes that any line differentiating the two classes may seem arbitrary to manufacturers of vehicles that fall barely on either side of the line. Arguably, these vehicles, similar in many respects, would exhibit only minor differences in crash pulse in any given accident situation. Nonetheless, the classification is valid for the majority of vehicles in each class. Since we are aware of no data that would indicate that a line could better be drawn elsewhere, the NHTSA has decided to retain the present classification.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

December 10, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection

The Wayne Corporation petitions NHTSA to either: Delete from FMVSS 222, Section S5(b), the requirements for and reference to 571.208, 571.209, and 571.210; or delete from FMVSS 222, all of Section S5(b) and revise Section S5(a) to include school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less.

The reason for this petition is based on Wayne's contention that FMVSS 222 unfairly discriminates against a particular class of school bus vehicles and that it is unreasonable as it applies to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less; and if allowed to stand, will force the manufacturers to cease production and withdraw this class of vehicle from the market.

This petition requests that the requirement that seat belts be installed and the requirement for seat belts and seat belt anchorages as applied to school bus vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less be eliminated from FMVSS 222.

The subject of seat belts in school buses has been and continues to be a controversial one. Seat belt proponents, who are safety advocates, promise a reduction in injury severity and reduced fatalities in school bus accidents if seat belts are used. Seat belt opponents, who are primarily school bus operators, predict dire consequences if seat belts are mandated for school buses. Wayne believes that NHTSA has been exposed to the pros and cons of this discussion, therefore, it is unnecessary for purposes of this petition to delineate in detail the positions of both points of view. To say that school bus operators object to seat belts in school buses is a gross understatement of their position in the matter. As discussed in the preamble of Docket No. 73-3, Notice 05, the school bus operators even objected to the proposal that seat belt anchorages be installed in school buses for fear that this would encourage the installation of seat belts. Wayne maintains that all other things being equal, the school bus operator, given the choice between the bus equipped with seat belts and a bus without seat belts, will always purchase the bus that does not have seat belts.

Currently school buses in the 16 to 24 passenger capacity range with gross vehicle weight ratings under 10,000 pounds and just over 10,000 pounds (10,500 to 11,000 pounds) are being marketed. Typical of this situation is the Wayne Busette and the Carpenter Cadet. The Wayne Busette is manufactured by the Wayne Division of Richmond, Indiana, has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, and will accommodate up to 20 seated passengers (see the enclosed Busette specification sheet). The Carpenter Cadet CV is manufactured by the Carpenter Body Works, Inc. of Mitchell, Indiana, has a GVWR of 10,500 pounds, and will accommodate up to 23 seated passengers (see enclosed copy of Cadet literature).

Both of these buses currently list for approximately $ 9,500. FMVSS 222, when it becomes effective, will require that both buses have seats which meet the same performance requirements, however, in addition, the Busette must have seat belts which comply with FMVSS 208, 209, and 210, installed at each passenger seating position. Wayne estimates that the increase in cost due to the seat belts alone will be in the $ 200 to $ 500 range.

FMVSS 222 discriminates against the small school bus with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds because seat belts are unacceptable to bus operators and alternate types of buses having the same functional characteristics are available without seat belts and the accompanying increased cost.

Wayne considers FMVSS 222 as it applies to school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less to be unreasonable because the increase in weight attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts will result in a total vehicle weight in excess of the GVWR of chassis available to body manufacturers and, therefore, will necessitate the removal of this type of vehicle from the market. The excess weight is attributable to the standard's requirement for seat belts in the Busette class of school bus as is shown in the following. Chassis Manufacturer's GVWR for Busette chassis 8,900 lbs. Total Busette weight including passengers pre-FMVSS 222 8,728 lbs. Increased weight due to the FMVSS 222 seat performance requirements without seat belts 104 lbs.

8,832 lbs. Increased weight due to FMVSS 222 require- ments for seat belts and their supporting systems 256 lbs. Total Busette Weight Post-FMVSS 222 9,088 lbs. Chassis GVWR 8,900 lbs. Vehicle Gross Weight Excess 188 lbs.

Since the Busette's introduction in 1974, the Wayne Division has produced and sold approximately 2,500 Busette vehicles, 2,400 of which have been school buses. Wayne has every reason to believe that the Busette school bus is a viable product in the market place as each year since its introduction, unit sales have increased at the rate of 10% to 15%. With the installation of seat belts as mandated by FMVSS 222, the gross vehicle weight will exceed the available chassis manufacturer's GVWR, therefore, Wayne will be forced to withdrawn the Busette school bus from the market. By taking the Busette off the market, the bus operator's choice of vehicles will be reduced forcing him to purchase vehicles which are more costly to operate. In addition, such action will reduce employment opportunities in Richmond, Indiana, and result in a financial hardship to the Wayne Division.

NHTSA's reason for requiring seat belts for small school buses is based on their contention that a more severe crash pulse is experienced by the smaller vehicles as compared with the larger vehicles under similar accident conditions. This may be a reasonable position for vehicles with a difference in GVWR of the magnitude of 10,000 to 15,000 pounds, however, as pointed out above, school buses just over the standard's 10,000 pound classification demarcation are available and this position cannot be justified for buses with a difference of 1,000 to 2,000 pounds GVWR.

In addition, NHTSA's position on seat belts seems to be inconsistent as illustrated in their reply to the Physicians for Automotive Safety request for seat belts in school buses. In Docket 73-3, Notice 05, NHTSA reiterates their position on seat belts, namely, "that a requirement for seat belts without the assurance of proper supervision of their use would not be an effective means of providing occupant protection." If seat belts will not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the big buses because of the absence of proper supervision, it logically follows that seat belts will also not provide an effective means of occupant protection in the small bus for the same reasons. Therefore, the requirement for seat belts should be altogether eliminated from the standard.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

CARPENTER Cadet "CV" '76

(Enclosure Omitted)

ID: aiam2677

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking severa questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses fo purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. these seats are not considered school bus seats' as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.; In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.; In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheelchair i close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5654

"Dear Mr. Pritzker: This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about th replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below. According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics 'super store' to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted. You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the 'make inoperative' provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the 'make inoperative' provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions. NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business.' Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action makes inoperative a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of 'designated seating position,' set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows: Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . . The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions. Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5136

"Dear Mr. Willen: This responds to your letter of December 7, 199 requesting an interpretation of the definition of 'designated seating position' in 49 CFR Section 571.3. You request confirmation of your belief that a proposed Honda seat design would have two designated seating positions. For the proposed design, '(t)he hip room is 44.2 inches over the length of the seat, and the seat width is only 39 inches. The seat is flat and does not have stiff inboard seat belt receptacles.' The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. If the seat has only 44.2 inches of hip room, the seat would probably qualify as having only two seating positions, since this value is below the 50-inch specification in the definition of 'designated seating position.' Please note, however, that the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used. The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. You ask if our answer would be different if fixed or movable armrests were provided. A fixed armrest does affect the measurement of designated seating position, since a fixed armrest would impede a person from sitting in the center position. NHTSA has stated in the preamble to the rule adopting the definition of designated seating position that the space occupied by a fixed, stationary armrest 'would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation.' 44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979. A fixed armrest on your seat would show your intent that the position is not intended to be used as a seat. Your letter also asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat width was greater than 39 inches. The number of designated seating positions is determined by the hip room, therefore, if the hip room remained the same, the seat would have the same number of designated seating positions even if the seat width was increased. Finally, you asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat were installed in a wider vehicle or positioned differently in the vehicle. Again, those modifications would only require an increase in the number of designated seating positions if the hip room were increased by these changes. Finally, I emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht75-5.27

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co. of America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of June 30, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the treadwear test procedure specified in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the UTQGS regulation does not describe the tests which you must perform. It describes the procedures which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will follow in its compliance testing. Your legal duty is to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to these procedures, the tires will meet the grades which you have assigned to them.

In its compliance testing, the NHTSA expects to utilize two teams of drivers operating in two shifts, for the very reasons suggested in your letter of June 19, 1975. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, you appear to have misinterpreted the vehicle rotation procedure specified in paragraph (e) (2) (viii) (C) of the regulation, which reads as follows:

Rotate the vehicles in the convoy by moving the last vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate driver position within the convoy. (emphasis added)

Therefore, the lead drivers ("A" and "E" in your chart) will remain the lead drivers throughout the testing, although the vehicle which they drive will change from day to day. Your chart would be correct if the words "Vehicle No." were replaced by the words "Convoy Position No." and if the vehicles were rotated as follows: Convoy Position No.: 1 2 3 4 Day 1 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Day 2 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Day 3 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Day 4 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Day 5 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Day 6 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Day 7 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Day 8 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Vehicle #4 Vehicle #1

Sincerely,

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

June 19, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel, National Hwy. Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: TIRE WEAR TEST PROCEDURE FOR UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING STANDARDS

This letter is to check with you if the proposed test procedure shown below, is permissible in view of the (2) (VIII) (C) of "Treadwear grading conditions and procedures" in section 575.104 Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, which says:

" (C) Rotate the vehicles in the convoy by moving the last vehicle to the lead position. Do not rotate driver position within the convoy."

1. Proposed Test Procedure

In order that we will be able to run test vehicles 800 miles per day, they are permitted to operate by two (2) shifts and two (2) teams of drivers, one team consists of A, B, C and D drivers and another team consists of E, F, G and H drivers. The following chart may help you to understand the proposed test procedure. Vehicle No. No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4 Miles 1st shift A B C D 400 1st day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 2nd day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 3rd day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 4th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 5th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 6th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 7th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 1st shift A B C D 400 8th day 2nd shift E F G H 400 Total: 6,400

2. Effect of the proposed test procedure:-

2-1. We will be able to find the results faster.

2-2. San Angelo test course will be made use of effectively by the rubber manufacturers and independent testing companies.

2-3. Safe and accurate driving will be expected by evading continuous and monotonous driving by one driver.

Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter.

Sota Nakajima Technical Representative

ID: aiam5387

Dear Mr. Bost: This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994 requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver. Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A 'rear designated seating position' is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An 'outboard designated seating position' is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of the vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions. The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachable upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward-facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced. Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht74-4.47

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 30, 1973, raises several questions about the present requirements of Standard 208 and its future course, and you suggest modifications of its vehicle loading and the lateral impact requirements to make the standard "representative of real world conditions." You state that leadtime is critical and this consideration compels you to raise specific questions.

The August 15, 1975, date for fully passive systems under Standard 208 was established March 10, 1971. Manufacturers will have had over four years of leadtime to study and design systems to meet the 208 crash protection requirements, or in the alternative to petition for rulemaking to amend them. While a decision to modify elements of Standard 208 is pending within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I can assure you that sufficient additional leadtime would be given to develop systems that conform, if such a course were found necessary.

I would recommend against an attempt to predict the future of Standard 208 from a reading of other proposed standards. While our desire is to reduce the complexity and cost of testing by making simultaneous barrier testing to several standards possible, complications such as you point out make the realization of this goal uncertain. You have suggested specific changes in vehicle loading and lateral crash test requirements of Standard 208. We request that these suggestions be proposed as petitions under 49 CFR Part 553.31 to amend the standard if this is your intent. Your petition to permit use of passive belt systems, for example, has been acted on under this procedure.

Sincerely yours,

The Honorable Administrator Dr. Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 30, 1973

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The preamble to docket 73-8, notice 2 (part 572 - Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and amendment to MVSS 208) states that:

(a) The specified part 572 test dummy is to be used only for compliance testing of passive restraint systems installed in vehicles manufactured during the time period August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

(b) The question of restraint system requirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975, will be the object of future rulemaking action, and the agency will not make any final decision regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive restraint requirements without further notice and opportunity for comment, and

(c) should the agency propose mandatory passive restraint requirement the question of conformity of a suitable dummy will again be open for comment.

The status of the rulemaking for mandatory passive restraints and a suitable dummy for testing these restraints is of extreme importance to Volkswagen. We must know the direction the NHTSA is taking in this matter so that our development work can address the real future requirements. Since leadtime is critical and we have not yet seen the expected rulemaking, we are compelled to raise the following questions:

1. Will the installation of mandatory passive restraint systems be required as of August 15, 1975, or at some later date?

2. Can you please clarify the inconsistency between the statement in the preamble(Illegible Word) docket 73-8, notice 2, that dummy conformity after August 15, 1975, will again be open for comment, and the statement in docket 73-20, notice 1 (fuel for testing after September 1, 1975? (The preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1, suggests that vehicles would be tested under both MVSS 208 and MVSS 301 simultaneously.)

3. If passive restraints become mandatory, will they be required at all seating positions, or only front seating positions? (Again, noting that the preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1 suggests simultaneous testing for MVSS 208 and MVSS 301, S 6.1 of that notice proposes that test dummies be installed only in each front outboard seating position. This could lead to the conclusion that for future rulemaking for MVSS 208, the injury criteria requirements would only be measured for the front outboard seating positions in frontal impacts, and no passive restraint system would be required for the rear seats. Volkswagen has previously commented on the unfavorable cost/ benefit ratio for rear seat passive restraints due to their infrequent occupancy.)

4. MVSS 208 requires a very high loading of the test vehicle. We feel that these loading conditions are not representative of real world conditions. Typically, an automobile has only one or two passengers, and no luggage in the trunk. Since the future requirements for passive restraints will be the subject of further rulemaking, could the NHTSA re-evaluate the test loading requirements and address this point in the rulemaking proposal?

5. MVSS 208 requires that the moving barrier has to have a vertical, rigid, flat rectangular impact surface 78 inches wide and 60 inches high with its lower edge five inches above the ground surface. Thus, the upper edge is 65 inches above the ground surface which is much higher than the front end of any american or imported passenger car.

In lateral barrier impact tests according to MVSS 208 with our current models, our test engineers observed that the dummies adjacent to the barrier impact surface hit the rigid barrier surface with their heads, obtaining very high injury criteria.

Up to now we have not found means to solve this problem. The use of laminated glass for the side windows, for example, did not show better results, because any available crush distance is already used up by the high barrier when the dummies' head impact the windows. As the recent barrier does not represent the front end of a typical car and the injury criteria depends greatly on the barrier height, we feel that paragraph S 8.2.2 of MVSS 208 is unrealistic. We suggest to specify the barrier face as in SAE J 972a. Other barriers for lateral impact such as the barrier established by ECE have even lower or equal upper edges of the impact surface.

Since this barrier height problem is especially critical to our small vehicles, and "Safety Standards shall take into consideration different classes of vehicles, such as small cars" (as recognized by the sixth circuit court of appeals in the Air Bag case), could the NHTSA re-evaluate the need for such a high barrier face and address this point in future rulemaking on passive restraints?

Your answers to each of our questions would be appreciated as soon as possible, so that we can continue our development work for restraint systems after August 15, 1975, with a clear understanding of NHTSA requirements.

Yours truly,

E. Fiala

ID: aiam4602

"Dear CONFIDENTIAL: Thank you for your letter requestin interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR /571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below. Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and automatic safety belts 'is competitively sensitive.' We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purged version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity. Standard No. 203 With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard 'does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies.' The first question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection, for the following reasons. The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992, April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions. Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection. Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose driver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone. If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automatic safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position. If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protection. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. Standard No. 210 Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: 'Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR /571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section.' This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595, April 12, 1985. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt users in a frontal crash. Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows: During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. ... In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their 'as delivered' form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, since occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergism, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";