ID: aiam5271

"Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter in which you withdre your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead. You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair. Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards. I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3747

Dear Mr. Desarro: This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the type of seat belts that must be used in a 1983 converted van that has a sofa.; Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, (copy enclosed) required trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the same requirements as passenger cars. This would include the vans in question. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, 2 seat belt assembly must be used. Thus, your vans must have Type 2 belts in the two front seats and either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions, including the sofa. The agency's position regarding seat belts for sofa/beds used in van conversions is more fully explained in the enclosed interpretation letter of March 29, 1983, to Sherrod Vans, Inc.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5457

"Dear Mr. Monnie: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which 'is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt.' You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the 'aftermarket' to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a 'locking clip.' A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less' (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product. While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the consumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system. In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, such as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 86-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: I. Levy -- B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. Levy B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd. 3/4 Portland Street London, WIN 56G ENGLAND

Thank You for your letter of January 11, 1984, concerning the effect of our regulations on a product you may export to the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The product, which you call a "Klunk-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attaches to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Your Ref.

Our Ref. IL/MN

Date: 14th January 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington D.C., 20590 United States of America

Dear Sirs,

We are endeavouring to export to the United States an attachment which fits into the seatbelt of a motor vehicle and provides the possibility of the adjustment to heighten the comfort level of the wearer.

In order that you may understand exactly what is meant by the above, we enclose herewith a diagram together with the instructions for this item.

We should be most obliged if you could confirm to us that his item would not be excluded from use and does not violate any present Federal Safety Regulations which are in force.

We look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours faithfully, for BPT LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

I Levy

The KLUNK KLIP* attachment can be used on most cars fitted with automatic (self-retracting) seat belts, where the seatbelt anchor point on the door pillar is similar to the above diagram. (It is not suitable for cars with recessed mountings).

It is designed to provide a personal adjustment which was previously only possible with static-type belts.

KLUNK-KLIP is designed for those who find seatbelts uncomfortable or even claustrophobic to wear. The use of KLUNK-KLIP avoids the tightness and tension so disliked by the users of automatic seatbelts. Ladies in particular appreciate the improved comfort when using KLUNK-KLIP.

KLUNK-KLIP does not effect the efficient working of the automatic seat belt.

TO FIT (see above illustration)

Remove the rotary wedge (A) by easing the two lugs (B) apart. Fit the hook part over the anchor bolt (C) on door pillar. Refit the wedge (A) as shown in diagram. The wedge should now lift freely to grip the belt.

TO USE

Fasten seat belt in the usual way.

Place one hand flat on chest beneath belt. This will extend the belt sufficiently to relieve the tension.

Lift wedge to lock belt.

You may now drive freely without tension. Any movement of the body or slight pull will release the KLIP and the belt will return to its retracted position.

Each time the belt is used the KLUNK-KLIP should be set as advised above, being careful to avoid introducing excessive slack.

ID: aiam4574

"Dear Mr. Mikoll: This responds to your letter asking for clarificatio of my November 3, 1988 letter to you. In a letter dated August 11, 1988, you requested my opinion concerning the acceptability of installing a new product you are developing (a 'safety bar') in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less instead of installing safety belts in those vehicles. The 'safety bar' consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the 'safety bar.' These curved poles are joined by three cross or transverse members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is intended to protect. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the safety bar and then sit down and allow the safety bar to lower so that it rests on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap resembling a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash. In my November 3, 1988 reply to your letter, I explained that the crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section requires that each designated seating position be equipped with either safety belts or a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants. Since the 'safety bar' is not a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants, my November 3 letter explained that the 'safety bar' could not be installed in place of safety belts in small school buses, i.e., school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. My November 3, 1988 letter also explained that safety bars could be installed in small school buses in addition to safety belts, if the safety bars do not destroy the ability of the required safety belts to comply with the requirements of our safety standards. I also stated that a manufacturer that installed these safety bars in small school buses would have to certify that the bus in which the safety bars were installed complied with the school bus emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217) and with the impact zone requirements specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. You asked whether my November 3, 1988 letter addressed the situation for both large school buses (i.e., those with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and small school buses, or whether it addressed only small school buses. Your previous letter asked only about small school buses, so my November 3 letter addressed those vehicles only. Assuming this was the case, you asked for 'an opinion that the safety bar does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation.' I am happy to have this chance to explain our regulations to you. Let me begin by noting that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer to certify that each of its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory provision, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for your product. Instead, any manufacturer that installs your safety bar in its large school buses must itself certify that those large school buses comply with all applicable safety standards when the safety bars are installed. The occupant crash protection requirements for large school buses are set forth in Standard No. 222. No provision of Standard No. 222 expressly prohibits the installation of 'safety bars' in large school buses. Hence, 'safety bars' can be installed in a large school bus, provided that the manufacturer of the bus certifies that it complies with all applicable requirements set forth in the safety standards with the safety bars installed. These requirements include the emergency exit requirements specified in Standard No. 217, all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, and the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht81-2.29

DATE: 05/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jim Tydings Thomas Built Buses, Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your April 14, 1981, letter asking whether a fold-up seat that you plan to build in a school bus would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You state in your letter that the seat would comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. If the seat complies with that standard and if its location in the bus will not interfere with the requirements applicable to emergency exits, then the seat should comply with all of the Federal safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 14, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 S.W. 7th St. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Enclosed is our print #46-009627, Sketch - Fold Up Seat Cushion at Emergency Exit, plus photos.

This print shows a side (left) emergency exit and the location of a seat wherein the cushion is spring loaded to maintain the cushion in an upright position when the seat is unoccupied.

The advantage being that this seat configuration provides greater egress to the side door. This seat naturally would meet all requirements of FMVSS-222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

It is our opinion that this arrangement meets the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Standards.

We would appreciate it if you would review this material and advise us of your conclusions.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

Jim Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

Enclosure

ID: 1985-02.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lynn R. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn R. Metzger President Mid Bus Inc. P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your February 22, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A "bus" is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulations is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined in S571.3 as "any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design 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. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheelchair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

You asked why you are not permitted to build a 6 passenger MPV exactly as you manufacture a school bus. As a MPV, your vehicle must be certified as meeting all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You may also voluntarily manufacture the vehicle in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

A final rule was recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard. Since you expressed an interest in that amendment, I have enclosed a copy of the final rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 22, 1985

Ms. Diedre Hom U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Thank you for discussing the 10 passenger school bus vs. multipurpose vehicle situation. As was mentioned, Mid Bus feels the regulation stating "A vehicle which is designed to carry...." is the key to this situation. We believe design means the actual capacity the body can hold. In the case of Mid Bus van, our unit is designed to carry 16 passenger. It can, at the request of a customer, be built to carry less than 10 passengers for purpose of transporting wheelchair passengers. The design of the vehicle has not changed, just the carrying capacity.

You will find enclosed floor plan showing Mid Bus units with capacities 16, 15, 10, and 6. The design of the six passenger unit is still a 16-passenger unit. It is built to carry 6.

From a liability stand point, we feel more secure building a 6 passenger vehicle exactly like we do a 16 passenger. Logically, why should people be afforded less protection going to and from school because the bus is under ten passengers?

As further discussed, we are aware of the multi-purpose vehicle specifications. You mentioned the petition for exemption from the door lock specs for vehicles with lift doors with buzzers. We feel this exemption would help, but it really attacks the problem from the back door.

Continued..........

We prefer to build school buses even if the build capacity falls below 10. Clarification of the statement "designed to" is requested. One suggestions would be an identification plate stating:

Design Capacity 16 Seating Capacity 9

In this example, the manufacturer states what the unit is designed for and also the capacity to which it is built.

Your time on the phone is appreciated and we request further review of our position.

Cordially,

Lynn R. Metzger, President

LRM:pas

CC: Frank Berndt - Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation

ID: nht94-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/93 From Michael Love To Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-8259)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101; Controls and displays and No. 102; Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the d elay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its "Tiptronic" automatic transmission system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure th at its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows:

The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventiona l automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The ri ght slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position aft er being tapped.

2

There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For bot h columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow.

In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system:

Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot.

Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options.

You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states:

Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position,

3

identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

S3.1.4.4 states:

Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the infor mation may be provided.

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 an d Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instru ment panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102.

Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever

4

positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -.

Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever "positions," since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - cou ld be seen as "one" shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems.

I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be co rrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D.

I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D pos ition, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to th e extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears.

You also stated the following:

5

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would the n be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers." It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission oper ating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . .

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmiss ion position is illuminated.

We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the "M" position, the s hift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the "D" position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstanc es, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, sinc e Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam5490

"Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your letter of January 3, 1995 telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the bottom edge of a flip-up school bus seat, when in the vertical position, could extend past the rearward edge of a side emergency exit door a maximum of 3/4 inch. The short answer to your question is no. You enclosed with your letter a copy of Figure 5B of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which shows the permitted positions of the seats forward and rearward of a school bus side emergency exit door. You drew in a depiction of the flip- up seat bottom showing the seat bottom extending into the access aisle a maximum of 3/4 inch. You stated that even with such intrusion, 11.75 inches of clear aisle space remains without obstruction of the door release mechanism. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i) of FMVSS No. 217 provides that no seat or restraining barrier shall be installed within the area bounded by a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearward edge of the door opening frame and a vertical transverse plane parallel to that plane at a distance of 30 centimeters forward of that plane. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii) then provides: A seat bottom may be located within the area described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within the area described in paragraph (i) when the seat bottom is vertical. (See Figure 5B). (Emphasis added). This requirement for a specific minimum aisle space leading to side emergency exit doors on school buses was contained in the final rule issued by this agency on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) to permit bus occupants unobstructed access to the emergency exit door. The language is very clear. No variation from that requirement is permitted. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin H. Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept of Transportation - New York (Std - 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort

TEXT:

Mr. Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen parkway Springfield, IL 62764

This responds to Your June 9, 1987, letter to me asking whether Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts an Illinois statute requiring 28-inch high seat backs on all new large school buses. The answer to your question is yes.

I must disagree with your view that FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not regulate seat back height. A seat back height requirement, established in paragraph S5.1.2, is an integral part of the standard's mandated comp artmentalization system of passenger crash protection. This agency has consistently said that any State requirement relating to seat back height that is not identical to S5.1.2 is preempted under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act.

I have enclosed a copy of a March 23, 1976 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin relating to the preemptive effect of Federal law over a New York State law for 28-inch high seat backs. Please note the discussion in the Chauvin letter relating to State requirement s for additional safety features in public school buses. Under Section l03(d), a State may require a seat back height higher than 20 inches for its public school buses, provided that the vehicles continue to comply with all applicable federal safety stan dards.

I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Larry Wort of your Department, whose earlier letter to us asking about our requirements for seat back height and restraining barriers raised also the same preemption issues. Please feel free to contact my office i f you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

(see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York; see also 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort)

June 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

My letter of June 9, 1987. about preemption of the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs in school buses contains an inadvertent error. On the first page, In the last full paragraph. the reference in parentheses should have read (49 CFR 571. 222S5.1.2.).

Please correct the reference and forgive our error.

Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

June 9, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

In this letter I ask you to agree that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses Is not preempted by a Federal statute; i.e., 15 USC 1392(d). A copy of the Illinois statute (Section 12-807.1 of the I llinois Vehicle Code (IVC) - Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2. par. 12-807.1) is enclosed. A Type I school bus has a GVWR more than 10,000 pounds (IVC 12-800, enclosed) .

We believe IVC 12-807. 1 is not preempted because it governs an aspect of performance not governed by a federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS - 49 CFR 571).

In Illinois. every school bus must meet the construction standards promulgated by this Department. (See IVC 1-182, 12-100. and 12-812, enclosed. By administrative agreement, the State Board of Education promulgates rules. regulations, and/or standards fo r OPERATION of school buses.) This Department's construction standards, among other things, require that each school bus conform to applicable provisions of FMVSS. The "high back" seats must conform to FMVSS 222. Each manufacturer of Type I school buses agrees and so certifies on the required permanently affixed Federal and State certification labels.

FMVSS 222 does not specify the height of a seat back. Instead, it specifies that each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that presents a prescribed front surface area located between two horizontal planes, one of which passes th rough the seating reference point while the other is 20 inches above the seating reference point (49 CfR 572.222S5. 1.2) . Each 28 inch high seat back required by IVC 12-807. 1 presents the required area and. according to Manufacturer's certifications, o therwise conforms to each applicable FMVSS requirement.

FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the amount of the seat back's front surface area which may be located above the higher of the

Ms. E. Z. Jones June 9, 1987 Page Two

two horizontal planes. FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the maximum distance the top of the seat back may be located above the empty seat cushion, the seating reference point. or any other point, plane, or object. In short, FMVSS 222 does not limit ei ther the maximum area or the maximum height of the seat back installed on a school bus passenger seat.

Please advise that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses (Ill. Rev. Stat.. 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-807.1) is not preempted. Because of the effective date of this statute, a prompt reply will b e deeply appreciated.

Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Enclosures

1986 SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED STATUTES 1985 STATE BAR ASSOCIATION EDITION

Laws of the 84th General Assembly from Acts 84--1109 through 84-l431 Convened January 8, 1986 Adjourned July 2, 1986

with INDEX