ID: aiam3809

Dear Mr. Day: This responds to your letter to this office asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances *or* that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating positions on the bus.; Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buse must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.; Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 17 1982

NOA-30

Mr. E. L. Anderson Project Engineer Transportation Products Inc. P.O. Box 329 Suffern, New York 10901

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your February 18, 1982, letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular, you question the requirement of section S5.3.3 which specifies that a continuous warning device shall sound when a school bus ignition is in the "on" position and the release mechanism for an emergency door is not closed. You ask whether depressing the button on the outside of the door should activate the warning device.

The actual requirement of S5.3.3 states that the warning device must be audible when the release mechanism is not in the closed position. The release mechanism is that mechanism that keeps the door from opening. So, for example, if the outside button were depressed but the actual door latch did not open and the door would not itself open, it would not be necessary for the warning device to actuate. However, I assume that the outside button releases the latch which in turn allows the door to open. If this is the case, then at the moment that the latch is released, the warning device must be audible. If this did not occur, it would be possible that the door could be in an open position with the vehicle operating and without the knowledge of the occupants.

I hope that this resolves the question for you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 18, 1982

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

We are requesting an interpretation of Paragraph S 5.3.3. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. The paragraph in question is: "When the release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unclosed mechanism."

The standard two and three point locking mechanism used on our school buses complies with this paragraph. However, in compliance with a specific application for a customer, the van manufacturer's locking mechanism which consists of a push button outside the van body and a pull type handle on the interior of the van body were retained. In order to comply with the aforementioned paragraph, a warning light and buzzer, a door jamb switch and related micro switch and related wiring were installed by us. (Wiring schematic attached).

The question concerns the push button outside the van body that actuates the door release mechanism. Does depressing the button on the outside of the door require a visible and audible device as outlined in paragraph S 5.3.3?

Trusting we have provided you with sufficient information to provide me with an answer in the next few days, we remain,

Very truly yours,

E. L. Anderson Project Engineer

EA/ms Enc. cc: Paramount

ID: 1984-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lamborghini of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America 23535 Telo Street Torrance, California 90505

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We have received your petition of July 6, 1984, for a two-year exemption of the Lamborghini Countach from the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 that it be equipped with sun visors.

You have filed this petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield. Petitions of this nature are appropriate where a product has inadvertently been manufactured out of compliance but the noncompliance has been corrected and the manufacturer seeks relief from the statutory responsibilities of notification and remedy for its past production. We do not understand this to be the case, as you have not reported importation of any Countachs without sun visors.

The proper procedure to obtain temporary exemptions from prospective noncompliances are those of 49 CFR Part 555. We assume that you have a copy of this regulation. If you wish to petition on one of the bases of this regulation, we shall be pleased to consider the matter further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 6, 1984

The Administrator NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

RE: PETITION FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM FMVSS #201-LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP 500S

Enclosed, please find our petition for partial exemption from Standard 201 for sun visors on the basis that such non-compliance is inconsequential in relation to road safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America

TT:ac Enc.

LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP500S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PART OF 49CFR PART 571.201.5.3.4.

49CFR 556.(B) (3)

APPLICANT: LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA 17230 SOUTH AVALON BOULEVARD CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746

Applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.

49CFR 556.(b)(4)

Temporary exemption is requested from 49CFR, Part 571.201.5.3.4.

Sunvisors

5.3.4.1. A sun visor that is constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material shall be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

Exemption is requested for a period of two (2) years. Vehicle concerned is the Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Number of vehicles involved is fifty (50) per year, for each of the two (2) years for which exemption is requested.

49CFR 556.4(b) (5)

Basis for petition

Our basis for request for exemption is probably more relevant to 49CFR 556, in that in our opinion the non-compliance of the vehicle with the sun visor requirement is inconsequential relative to motor vehicle safety.

The roofline, front header rail, (actually a part of the tubular steel roll cage) and the top portion of the windshield which is lightly tinted are relatively low and the angles subtended at the eye point relative to the horizontal plane by the roofline and the bottom of the tinted strip are as low as conventional sun visor placement would provide. The enclosed photograph shows the view from eye-level.

The enclosed diagram shows the position of a 50th percentile male's head from and the generation of the angles subtended at the eye-point by the header rail and the lowest point of the tinted portion at the top of the windshield.

"INSERT"

ID: aiam4370

Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) asking two questions about the applicability of our school bus safety standards to vans. I apologize for the delay in our response.; Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpfu to provide some background information on our school bus regulations. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. We believe that those motor vehicle safety standards for school buses are the 'school bus regulations' to which you refer in your letter.; In general, the parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act ar manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to 'school buses.' Further, under the Vehicle Safety Act, each person selling a new bus to a school must ensure that the bus complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. Because the Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and not to vehicle use, there is no Federal prohibition directed against a school or school district that uses noncomplying buses to carry school children.; NHTSA issued the second set of 'regulations' for school buses under th authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or 'highway safety program standards,' are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed) includes recommendations for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus identification, maintenance and driver training. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. A state that has adopted this standard might have specifications applying to small 'vans' used as school vehicles. Because the issue is one concerning state law, South Carolina officials would be able to provide you with more information on state requirements for the operation of smaller school vehicles.; With this background, I will now address your specific questions. You first question asked whether a vehicle carrying 11 or fewer persons (driver included) must conform to Federal school bus requirements. our regulations issued under the Vehicle Safety Act specify that a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a 'bus,' and is considered to be a 'school bus' if sold for school-related purposes. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying *10* or fewer persons, it is considered under our regulations to be either a 'passenger car' or a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' (MPV). We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they must meet safety standards applicable to MPV's.; Your second question was 'Can a van designed for 14 passengers b redesigned for 10 passengers and not be required to meet Federal school bus requirements?' Before I explain the consequences under Federal law of removing seats from a 14-passenger bus, I would like to reiterate that our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of school buses by school districts or individual schools. Therefore, Federal law does not require your school district to use only complying school buses or to restrict the seating in your 14-passenger vans to take them out of our 'school bus' category. While persons selling your school district new 14-passenger vans *are obligated to sell* buses which conform to our school bus safety standards, transporters of school children are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that all their vehicles designed for seating 11 or more persons comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I would also like to point out that the following discussion concerns only whether the modification you described would be permitted under our statutes and regulations. Since the States set their own operational requirements for school vehicles, you should contact South Carolina officials to determine the consequences of such a modification under State law.; In general, the answer to your question is yes. However, if the seat are removed by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or distributor, there are Federal restrictions on the way the modification may be made. Also, separate considerations arise depending on whether the seats are removed before the vehicle's first sale (i.e., from a new vehicle) or after its first sale (from a used vehicle).; Altering a 14-passenger bus by removing some of its seats so that i would no longer have a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a manufacturer or dealer reduces the passenger capacity of a *new* bus to less than 10 *before* the vehicle is sold or delivered to the owner, that manufacturer or dealer is considered an 'alterer' under our regulations. By so reducing the passenger capacity, the vehicle's classification would be changed from a bus to an MPV. Accordingly, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would require the alterer to install safety belts at all seating positions.; If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, ou regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply. However, modifications to used vehicles are subject to a statutory restriction. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a commercial modifier in any of the above categories may remove seats in your vehicle, but must ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable Federal safety standards after the seats have been removed. The Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A). Neither the prohibition against rendering inoperative in S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act nor our regulations issued under the Safety Act applies to an owner modifying his or her own vehicle. Therefore, if your school district chooses to reduce the passenger capacity of your vehicles, you may perform the work on your own vehicles without regard to any Federal regulations administered by this agency. Again, however, you should ensure that the modification is done in conformance with any applicable South Carolina laws.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2545

Dear Mr. Kurre: this responds to your February 22, 1977, letter asking whether restraining barrier in front of a seat with a back higher than that required in S5.1.2 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back.; The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found i paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard. That section states that: 'in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required.' The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. Therefore, a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard No. 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5573

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the 'park' position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm. The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a 'static' measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving. This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the 'park' position and that the transmission remains locked in 'park' after key removal. (60 FR 30006, June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective. Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that ' e ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' To demonstrate that the vehicle is in 'park' prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state: Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the 'park' position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes. In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The 'dynamic' method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The 'static' method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the 'rocking' motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non- production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring. NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the 'static' method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again 'static'). This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2375

Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to Nissan Motor Company's June 2, 1976, question whethe a passenger car rear seat cushion assembly which is hinged to rotate forward about its lower front corner is subject to the requirement of S4.3 of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems,* for a self-locking restraining device with certain dynamic characteristics. If a restraining device is required, you request to know the test procedures appropriate for it under S4.3.2.1(a).; Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 states, with two exceptions, 'a hinge or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding device.' The NHTSA does not consider the words 'occupant seat or occupant seat back' to refer to the seat cushion alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required. The requirement of S4.2(a) in the case of seating systems with separate backs and cushions is considered a sufficient test of the seat cushion retention characteristics. In the case of the seat cushion assembly you describe, our estimate of the cushion center of gravity in relation to the hinge point indicates that some form of restraint is probably necessary to comply with the requirement for application of a 20g force in the forward direction.; This interpretation supersedes our November 27, 1972, letter to th Recreational Vehicle Institute to the degree that its discussion of seat cushion restraint is inconsistent with this interpretation.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3070

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several question concerning the definition of 'designated seating position' (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).; In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench o split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the preamble to the recent amendment, 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 (44 FR 23232). 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. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.; Your second question involves technical aspects of the amende definition of 'designated seating position'. The definition specifies that 'hip room' is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines 'hip room' as,; >>>'the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimme surfaces on the 'x' plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.' (Area A in your diagrams.)<<<; Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions o vehicle seats or other components would be considered 'trimmed surfaces' within SAE Standard J1100(a).; Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered 'trimmed surfaces', for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter 'trimmed surfaces' and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that 'hip room' is the minimum dimension 'between trimmed surfaces'. If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such a case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.; Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must mak several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of 'designated seating position' by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevations or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.; Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amende definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.; I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate an problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3071

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several question concerning the definition of 'designated seating position' (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).; In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench o split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the preamble to the recent amendment, 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 (44 FR 23232). 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. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.; Your second question involves technical aspects of the amende definition of 'designated seating position'. The definition specifies that 'hip room' is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines 'hip room' as,; >>>'the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimme surfaces on the 'x' plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.' (Area A in your diagrams.)<<<; Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions o vehicle seats or other components would be considered 'trimmed surfaces' within SAE Standard J1100(a).; Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered 'trimmed surfaces', for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter 'trimmed surfaces' and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that 'hip room' is the minimum dimension 'between trimmed surfaces'. If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such a case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.; Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must mak several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of 'designated seating position' by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevations or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.; Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amende definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.; I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate an problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Russell Thatcher -- Director, Mobility Assistance Program, Exective Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 Boston, MA 02116-3969

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regional Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of vans which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.

The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1 .3 of the standard provides:

In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the seat structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20o and not more than 75o.

According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75o. If the outboard porti on of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75o.

We cannot offer a opinion as to whether the inboard portion of the safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jack Connors, Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 55 Broadway / Kendall Square Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

Re: Interpretation of, and Compliance with, Specification 49 CFR Section 571-210 Subsection 4.3.1.3

Dear Mr. Connors:

The State of Massachusetts, acting through the Executive Office of Transportation & Construction, administers the Federal 16(b)(21 and State Mobility Assistance Programs. These programs provide grant subsidies to private and public non profit agencies ac ross the state for the purchase of wheelchair lift equipped vans and minibuses used to transport elderly and disabled persons.

We are currently in the process of purchasing forty three (43) vans from Collins Bus Corporation which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporations Model D117 seats. Questions have been raised about the current seat belt placement being utilized by Republic Seating.

We would like to request an opinion from your office on whether or not the design complies with federal standards. Attached is a quarter-scale diagram of the seat showing the location of the seat belts.

Your expeditious handling of the matter would be greatly appreciated. During the last year approximately 100 vehicles across the State have been purchased and are being operated in transportation programs.

Should you require additional information, please contact my Assistant Director Royal Spurlark or myself at 973-?000. should you need to contact Republic Seating for information, you can call Mr. Peter Redding, President of that company at (312) 628-8500 .

Sincerely,

Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS