ID: aiam4997

"Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter of April 2, 199 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that: A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint. B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222. To support these statements you offer the following reasons: 1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure. 2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended. 3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use. The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989, The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990, and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard. With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged 'intent' of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design. With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, '(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position.' In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that 'once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback.' Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c) Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure. 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, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam0509

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1971, in which you aske our opinion on how to position a 50th percentile 6-year-old child in determining the conformity of a seat belt warning system to S7.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208. Our opinion is that the child should be positioned with his back against the back of the seat and his head upright, in the posture in which he would be held by the seat belt if it were buckled around him as specified in S7.1. This is the position what will be used in our tests for conformity to S7.3.1(c).; The language that you cite from S8.1.11(b) of the standard ('norma upright sitting posture') is applicable to the position of test devices during the dynamic tests specified in S4 and S5, but is not applicable to the belt adjustment and warning system requirements of S7. The position that we intend to use under S7.3.1(c) is therefore not based on any definition of 'normal upright sitting posture.'; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 10354

Dr. Dimitrios Kallieris
Associate Professor and Division Chief
Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics
Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg
Vossstrasse 2
69115 Heidelberg, Germany

Dear Dr. Kallieris:

This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained "by a three-point belt and air bag."

Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for "vehicles equipped with passive restraints," or S5.2 for "vehicles not equipped with passive restraints." The answer to your question depends on whether the restraint system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of "passive restraint system" set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as:

a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.

Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes.

You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars:

(a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints);

(b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements; and

(c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets the requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant.

We assume that the "three-point belt and air bag" to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a "passive restraint system," and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield.

The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance critera using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restraints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation.

Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retained by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:212 d:2/3/95

ID: aiam2435

Dear Mr. Coffey: This is in response to your letter of September 13, 1976, in which yo ask whether Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, requires that the 20-inch maximum separation between the seating reference point and the rear surface of the restraining barrier be measured at the point of greatest distance between the two.; The restraining barrier you describe has padded tubing around it circumference which would be closer to the seating reference point than the center section of the barrier. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 222 to mean that the 20-inch distance must be measured from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back or restraining barrier, exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface. The side tube portion would constitute such a protrusion.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: G.T. DOE -- LOTUS ENGINEERING, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/05/87 FROM G.T. DOE TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC 176; LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO J. DOUGLAS HAND

TEXT: Dear Mr. Doe:

This responds to your letter in which you asked how the conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new tw o seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a "factory manufactured and approved" hardtop conve rsion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216.

I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as "a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pil lar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member." In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate com merce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did

not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer.

The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. Howe ver, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception.

Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or t o a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lot us of the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have r eason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requi rements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR @ 567.7.

The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were:

1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversio n?

ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the r ollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216.

2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, "It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area." The requi rements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a "designated seating position." This term is defined in 49 CFR @571.3 as follows:

"Designated seating position" means 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.

We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designate d seating positions.

The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purpose s of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 o f Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance wi th the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors.

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam3124

Dear Mr. Brown:#I regret the delay in responding to your letter of Jul 19, 1979, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal control shown in your illustration so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate indentification (sic) of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.#Since the symbols required by Safety Standard 101-80 were selected in order to facilitate international standardization and harmonization, it is important that they not be significantly altered from one vehicle to another. This is particularly important in order to ensure that drivers become familiar with the meaning of various symbols including the turn signal symbol.#However. Safety Standard 101-80 does permit manufacturers to supplement the symbols designated in Table 1 of the standard with additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, nothing in the standard would prevent your company from adding additional symbols, such as curved thinner arrows next to the turn signal symbol, to indicate mode of operation.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3125

Dear Mr. Brown:#I regret the delay in responding to your letter of Jul 19, 1979, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal control shown in your illustration so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate indentification (sic) of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.#Since the symbols required by Safety Standard 101-80 were selected in order to facilitate international standardization and harmonization, it is important that they not be significantly altered from one vehicle to another. This is particularly important in order to ensure that drivers become familiar with the meaning of various symbols including the turn signal symbol.#However. Safety Standard 101-80 does permit manufacturers to supplement the symbols designated in Table 1 of the standard with additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, nothing in the standard would prevent your company from adding additional symbols, such as curved thinner arrows next to the turn signal symbol, to indicate mode of operation.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0619

Dear Mr. Rose: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1972, concerning the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pamphlet, 'What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems.'; While you approve generally of the pamphlet, you state that yo consider certain statements in it to be incorrect. Particularly, you disagree with two statements appearing on the page of the pamphlet discussing child harnesses. Those statements were: 'Give preference to those which attach under the seat back, not over it.', and, 'Give preference to those which either attach directly to the vehicle floor, or to the vehicle seat belt, not to the seat back.' We do not agree that either of these statements is incorrect.; The NHTSA position is that child harnesses that attach over or directl to the vehicle seat back increase the chance of seat back failure, a hazard which you recognize in your letter. Our dynamic test data have shown that affixing a child harness in either of these ways can cause the inertial load of the child to be applied to the seat back excessively deforming or failing the seat back, thereby allowing excessive occupant excursion and increasing the chance of injury to the child. In short, these configurations increase rather than, as you seem to argue, decrease the chance of seat back failure.; With regard to the statements concerning compressive forces bein applied to the child during a crash, while we agree in principle that such forces are undesirable, it is not clear from your letter how their application is prevented by having the child harness attach over the top of the vehicle seat. In any event, it is preferable, in our view, for some force to be applied to the child's torso, as long as it is evenly distributed, than to have the child flung into hostile surfaces within the vehicle.; We also do not agree with the statement on page 2 of your letter tha harnesses can safely be attached to a vehicle seat back, as the seat back is '...in turn securely attached to the car floor.' Our experience has been quite the opposite, vehicle seat backs are merely attached to the seat frame and are quite susceptible to collapse in crash situations.; Finally, we do believe the pamphlet, in its recommendation that a chil should not stand on the front seat of the vehicle when the harness is attached, is consistent with the design of your harness in that both seek to reduce the danger of whiplash injury.; I hope this clarifies our position for you. Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Deputy Administrator

ID: aiam0390

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1971, concerning th application of sections 111 and 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1400, 1402), and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), to manufacturers of slide-in campers.; In your letter, you state your conclusion that slide-in campers ar items of motor vehicle equipment, that consequently, sections 113(a), 113(b), 113(c), 113(d) and 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1402(a), 1402(b), 1402(c), 1402(d), 1402(e)) do not apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers, that Part 573, 'Defect Reports,' similarly does not apply to them, but that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to them. You request that we confirm these conclusions or advise you in which areas we disagree.; You are correct in concluding that a slide-in camper is an item o motor vehicle equipment under the Act. The Administration's position has not changed since publication of the ruling of March 26, 1968 (33 F.R. 5020), to which you refer, concerning the classification of slide-in campers as items of motor vehicle equipment. We also agree with your conclusion that sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c) of the Act, do not directly apply to manufacturers of slide-in campers. They apply, as you state, only to manufacturers of motor vehicles.; We also agree with your conclusion that section 113(d) of the Act (1 U.S.C. 1402(d)) and Part 573, Defect Reports, do not apply to manufacturers of slide- in campers or other motor vehicle equipment. We also agree that section 111 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1400) does apply to both equipment and vehicle manufacturers.; We do not agree, however, with your position that section 113(e) of th Act (15 U.S.C. S 1402(e)) applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. To read section 113(e) in this manner would allow one of the basic remedial provisions of the Act to be ineffective in dealing with a vast segment of the industry that the Act is intended to regulate. Our position is that section 113(e) applies both to manufacturers of motor vehicles and to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and that sections 113(a), 113(b) and 113(c) as referenced in that section also apply to both types of manufacturers. We believe this conclusion to be clearly reflected in the language of these sections. While the language of section 113(a) refers only to manufacturers of motor vehicles, section 113(e) refers with equal emphasis to manufacturers of a motor vehicle *or* item of motor vehicle equipment.; To summarize, while manufacturers of slide-in campers or other moto vehicle equipment are not obligated to conduct voluntary defect notification campaigns pursuant to section 113(a), should the Administrator determine, pursuant to section 113(e), that a slide-in camper or other item of motor vehicle fails to comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard, or contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, then the Administrator is authorized to order the manufacturer of that item of motor vehicle equipment to conduct a notification campaign, as specified in sections 113(a), 113(b), and 113(c). Failure or refusal by the manufacturer to do so may result in a violation of section 108(a)(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(4)) and the impositions of the sanctions specified in sections 109 (15 U.S.C. S 1398) and 110 (15 U.S.C. S 1399).; I wish to point out that, in practice, manufacturers of slide-i campers or other motor vehicle equipment and manufacturers of motor vehicles may be treated similarly under section 113. When the Administration has reason to believe that either a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment fails to comply with an applicable standard or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is generally requested to discuss the matter informally before a formal determination is made pursuant to section 113(e). Most manufacturers have, at this point, and irrespective of whether they manufacture vehicles or equipment, voluntarily offered in the best interests of safety to notify owners of record of the problem.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2507

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your January 19, 1977, question whether th requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, for a restraining barrier of specified size in front of certain designated seating positions necessitates the provision of an additional barrier surface in front of those portions of a bench seat that do not form part of the designated seating positions. You describe a front-row two-passenger bench seat in a bus (with a seat back that extends beyond the bench to provide adequate restraint for a three-passenger seat aft of it) and ask about the restraining barrier that is required in front of the two- passenger front-row seat.; Paragraph S5.2.2 requires that the perimeter of the restraining barrie coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required. This means that the restraining barrier must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the desinnated (sic) seating position or positions for which it is required. Therefore, a seat with only two designated seating positions must only be equipped with a restraining barrier in front of those two seating positions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel