ID: nht87-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Arisaka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference this for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.

Your first question is what is the mechanical axis for performing photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp if provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetri cal dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminate d by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the H B3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at rest point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis o f the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper reference axes.

You have also asked where the aiming pads ought to be located on such a headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretation letter of September 6, 1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps twisted on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photome tric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Miller,

Re. Photometric reference axis for two lamps system, and location of aiming pads

We would like to know a view of the photometric reference axis for two-lamp system with two bulbs (HB3 and HB4), and location of aiming pads.

In case that both HB3 and HB4 are used for the upper beam, where the reference axis for 'the upper beam and the lower beam should be placed in photometric measurement? We show examples of reference axis in Table A.

In addition to the question above, we would like to know where the aiming pads of two-lamp system with two bulbs are located. (Please see Table B.)

On your letter of September 6, 1985, the aiming pads should be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion (HB4) of the headlamp. But now, there is a lamp which aiming pads is located on the other location in the U.S. market. We would like to k now the view of NHTSA again.

We are looking forward to your reply to our questions. Sincerely yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

A. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect.

Enc. Table A : Reference axis in photometric measurement Table B : Location of the aiming pads

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: aiam3137

Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting ou opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.; You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will hav approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is 'likely to be used' is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3138

Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting ou opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.; You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will hav approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is 'likely to be used' is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4938

"Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter asking about the ne dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements: Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: INS_SUV

Mr. Mark D. Wallace
Department of Justice
U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Room 6214
425 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Wallace:

This is in response to your request for a waiver to purchase motor vehicles that, because of their design for severe off-road use, do not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant this type of waiver. However, as explained below, the vehicles you wish to purchase would not be subject to the FMVSS.

By way of background, under 49 U.S.C. 30101(1) this agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles." A motor vehicle is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways[.]" 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). In limited circumstances, we have determined that vehicles designed and sold exclusively for off-road use were not "motor vehicles" and thus, not regulated under the FMVSS.[1] If the vehicles you wish to purchase were intended only for off-road use and therefore not "motor vehicles," they would not be subject to our standards. Furthermore, under 49 CFR 571.7(b), the FMVSS do not apply to vehicles "manufactured for, and sold directly to the Armed Services of the United States in conformity with contractual specification."

In your letter you state that current commercial, "off-the-shelf" sport utility vehicles are unable to meet the demands of operating in the severe terrain as required by the expanding mission of the Border Patrol. In response to this problem, you state that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) developed a "Terrain-Based Off-Road Vehicle Program," through which the INS is working with different vehicle manufacturers to produce off-road vehicles that are designed to withstand the off-road driving conditions of deserts and mountain passes, based on existing commercial vehicles (e.g. the Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD). You anticipate that these vehicles would be operated by the Border Patrol on public roadways less than ten percent of their driving time.

Your request cites a previous letter from our agency in which we determined that through border enforcement, the Border Patrol functions similar to a component of the Armed Forces.[2] In that letter, the Hummer vehicles bought by the Border Patrol were used in a national security role by protecting "the countrys borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations." The Hummer vehicles were capable of being equipped with military equipment and would carry firearms. As such, the Hummer vehicles were not subject to the FMVSS.

Our agency regards the border enforcement function of the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. Because of the unique mission and method of operation by the Border Control, I have determined that the vehicles in question fall with in the military vehicle exemption and need not be certified as compliant with all applicable FMVSS. In this instance, the vehicles you wish to purchase would be built according to specifications provided by the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be sold directly to the Border Patrol. The vehicles would be used in a capacity similar to that of the exempted Hummer vehicles previously purchased by the Border Patrol and in a capacity similar to that of the Armed Forces. We take no position on whether these vehicles, if purchased by someone other than INS, would be considered motor vehicles with in the context of 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

I hope this addresses your concern.If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.3/17/03

ID: 1985-02.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.0. Box 13047 Capitol Station Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus-safety standards.

Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate 7 passengers and 3 wheelchair positions and to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined 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 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....

Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.

The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would be required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.

Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry 9 student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats for handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.

I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.

Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats. You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.

Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for side facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR' s greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.

Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulder straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.

Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present to delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a conversation on January 22, 1985 with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff, she suggested that I formally submit the following questions to you concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My questions are:

1. If a school bus manufacturer installs on a school bus normally designed or capable of holding 15 passengers, three wheel chair positions and sufficient school bus passenger seating for an additional seven passengers, will the resulting vehicle

a) be defined as a school bus (i.e. it can carry a total of 10 passengers, exclusive of the driver),

b) be required to comply with the seating requirements or FMVSS No. 222?

2. If the above bug had only space for six additional passengers (for a total of 9), would the resulting vehicle be classified as a school bus and be required to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222 for seating?

3. Must seat barriers be placed forward and rearward or a side facing seat on a school bus used to transport handicapped students if the side facing seat is positioned between rear of regular school bus passenger seats?

4. Would the back of a regular passenger seat, properly constructed and positioned ahead of the side facing seat, meet the requirement?

5. Would seat belts be required for occupants of the side facing seat if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or the vehicle were a) 10,000 pounds or less, or b) greater than 10,000 GVWR?

6. Do you know of any tests or do you have any information on the use of shoulder straps or harness used in conjunction with seat belts for regular passenger seating on either small (10,000 GVWR or less) or larger school buses?

7. Preliminary reports of recent Canadian tests indicate for small school buses, that "the heads of all restrained dummies experienced forces that were judged to be life threatening or fatal" in frontal crashes with belted dummies, while the heads of all unbelted dummies "experienced forces below the limit that is judged to cause serious injury or death". Since these preliminary results indicate that the use of seat belts in all school buses would possibly cause more injuries than the absence of belts, thereby verifying the "compartmental" concept that NHTSA has held, does NHTSA have any plans at present to delete the seat belt requirements on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less?

Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin, Chief Specification Section 512 - 475-2232

TCM/tgf

cc: Herb Gersbach

ID: aiam0607

Dear Mr. Parrott: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, l972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.; You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it wil most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non- rigid component. There is not at present a definition of 'rigid' in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.; You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts th tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.; With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it i answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard required at point N, where there is 'essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube.' S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be 'covered' with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy- absorbing material.; Your third sketch asks whether energy- absorbing material is require where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a 'side' and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a 'side' under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.; Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5 published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled 'Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials.' This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager

ID: nht79-2.8

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1979, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to withdraw an earlier interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which stated that any contactable objects falling within the head protection zone must comply with the head impact and force distribution requirements. The head protection zone might include some areas in the driver's seating location, and therefore, any contactable object in the driver's seating location that falls within the zone must comply with the requirements. The agency declines to alter its interpretation.

The standard is clear in its specification of zones for head form impact and force distribution testing. These zones help to ensure that any contactable objects falling within them will be sufficiently padded to protect a child from serious injury in an accident. The head protection zone for any passenger seat extends into the seat area of the passenger seat immediately in front of it. Similarly, the zone for the front passenger seat might extend into the driver's seating location. You argue that the restraining barrier between the front seat and the driver's seat removes the need for head protection zone requirements in the driver's seating area.

The fact that a restraining barrier separates the driver's seating location from the passenger seat bears no relevance to the need for head impact protection in the head protection zone for the front passenger seat. The head protection zone extends above and beyond the restraining barrier recognizing the possibility that the heads and upper bodies of larger children are likely to be impelled somewhat beyond the barrier in an accident. The barrier should help to prevent a child from being thrown entirely out of its seating position, but a barrier cannot prevent a child's head from being propelled beyond the barrier in some instances. Since the head protection zone requirements are designed to provide protection in these situations and that protection is needed for all passenger seats including the front seat, the agency will not alter its interpretation of the requirements as they apply to the head protection zone for the front passenger seat.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 1, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: 1. FMVSS 222 2. Robert B. Kurre to Frank A. Berndt, April 1, 1977

3. Frank A. Berndt to Robert B. Kurre, N40-30, May 11, 1977

Dear Mr. Levin:

Paragraph S 5.3.1.1 of reference 1 defines a head impact zone relative to the passenger seating reference point which must meet certain performance requirements with respect to head impact testing.

Reference 2 requests a clarification of the zone with respect to the drivers area. Reference 3 states that contactable surfaces in the zone of S 5.3.1.1 must meet the requirements as specified in S 5.3.1.

The purpose of this letter is to question the interpretation given in reference 3.

The driver's side barrier required by S 5.2 effectively isolates passengers from the driver's compartment. To require padded driver's seat frames in addition to isolating them from the passenger compartment is a redundant requirement which adds cost without any corresponding safety benefit.

The only other alternative is to provide more clearance between barrier and the driver's seat. By doing this, driver's seat padding requirements could be avoided. However, since most states have an overall length limit to which specific bus models are designed, this would eliminate at least three passenger positions.

As can be seen from the attached photos, taken before and after a barrier performance test, there is no need to pad the driver's seat since it is isolated from possible passenger impact. The posttest photograph is taken from NHTSA's compliance test report no. 780903 of a Blue Bird All American Schoolbus.

Therefore, on the basis of practicality we would ask that the interpretation given in reference 3 be reversed.

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

Barrier / Driver's Seat relationship, Protest.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 3-16 (CONT) FORCE/DEFLECTION TEST, DRIVER BARRIER, PRETEST & POSTTEST

ID: nht81-1.39

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 16 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer COSCO 2525 State street Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Mr. Knoedler:

This responds to your letter of January 9, 1981, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether a three-point harness system can be used on a rear-facing infant restraint. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard sets requirements for the belts or other devices used as an integral part of a child restraint to restrain a child. Section 5.4.3.4 of the standard, referred to in your letter, sets requirements for child restraint systems which consist solely of a harness, such as the Little Rider Child's Safety Harness formerly produced by Rose Manufacturing Co. (The harnesses covered by section S5.4.3.4 of the standard were formerly classified as type III seat belt assemblies and regulated by Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.)

Section 5.4.3.3. provides, in part, that its requirements apply to "each child restraint system that is designed for use by a child in a seated position...." In referring to systems that are used by a child "in a seated position", the section is referring to conventional, forward-facing child restraints where the child sits in the restraint in the same manner as he or she would sit in a chair. It does not refer to rear-facing devices for use by infants where the infant is always held in a reclining position.

Because rear-facing restraint systems use the surface behind the child as the primary means of restraining the infants, the belts in such systems are primarily used to control the excursion of the child upon rebound after an impact. Field and laboratory test data available on rear-facing infant restraints indicate that a three point belt system can adequately restraint a child in rebound situations.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

January 9, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our company would like a written opinion by NHTSA on whether three-point harness systems will be allowed on rear-facing infant car restraints under the specifications outlined in the Standard No. 213-80 "Child Restraint Systems."

There have been rear-facing infant restraints which use three-point harness systems for many years. By a 3-point harness, I mean belts which pass over each shoulder of the child and a crotch strap to which the two shoulder straps attach. This method has been, and still is, being used on rear-facing restraints manufactured or sold by General Motors, Ford, Questor, Century, and Peterson. To my knowledge, there has never been any information gathered to indicate that such harness systems are anything but safe, effective, and convenient methods of restraining rear-facing infants.

It states in the Standard 213 under Section S5.4.3.4. Harnesses "Each child harness shall:

(a) Provide upper torso restraint, including belts passing over each shoulder of the child;

(b) Provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt; ..."

Since there is no reference here to whether this applies to rear-facing or forward-facing units, does this mean that a three-point harness would not be allowed on rear-facing infant restraints? Such a requirement would ban from the market many universally recognized safe and effective infant restraints and apparently nothing would be gained in the way of increased safety.

As this may affect our method of manufacture, an early response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

cc: Val Radovich