ID: 24219missing_card_and_manual_at_retailer

Emilie Crown, RN, CEN
Program Manager
Montgomery County CPS Program
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850





Dear Ms. Crown:

This responds to your March 7, 2002 letter, to my office, on behalf of a retailer, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213). You ask whether retailers may sell new child restraints that are not accompanied by printed instructions for the child restraint, or that do not have an owner registration card attached to them, as required by S5.6.1 and S5.8 of the standard, if the retailer were to take steps to have the printed instructions sent to the purchaser and to register the purchaser with the manufacturer. Our answer is that the sale of the child restraints that are missing the printed instructions would be prohibited. The sale of the child restraints that do not have the registration card attached to them would be permitted, but only if a card containing all the required information were handed to the purchaser or if the purchaser were registered by the retailer at the point of sale of the restraint.

You explain that retailers have told you that sometimes the instruction manual and/or owner registration card are "lost in the shuffle." The cards are frequently lost when child restraints are bought and later returned, as well as when the restraints are used as floor models. A retailer has told you that--

they can easily get additional instruction manuals from the manufacturer, but the registration cards are a different matter. Apparently some of the vendors provide them with blank registration cards that they can fill in the date of manufacture and model number on, and other times they tell them to just have the customer call in the registration.Would the retailers be able to use [generic NHTSA registration] cards?

Printed Instructions

Section 30112 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") prohibits the sale of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Retailers are thus prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not meet Standard No. 213. The first of the two requirements you ask about is set forth in S5.6.1 of the standard. S5.6.1 states, in pertinent part: "Each add-on child restraint system shall be accompanied by printed installation instructions in English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for installing the system in motor vehicles, securing the system in the vehicles, positioning a child in the system, and adjusting the system to fit the child. . . .

Retailers are prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not have the instruction manual. A retailer cannot satisfy the requirement to sell a restraint with an instruction manual by having the purchaser "call the car seat manufacturer to send the buyer a new manual," nor by the retailer itself calling the manufacturer. Stated simply, the instruction manual must accompany the child restraint when the restraint is sold. We suggest that the retailer obtain any needed replacement manuals from the manufacturer prior to offering the restraint for sale.

Owner Registration Card

S5.8 of Standard No. 213 requires that each new child restraint be accompanied by an owner registration card. S5.8 states: "Each child restraint systemshall have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system " The form must be pre-printed with the model name or number and date of manufacture of the child restraint, and with the manufacturer's name and mailing address. It must also be postage-paid.

We interpret S5.8 as permitting the sale of a child restraint system that lacks the original (manufacturer-provided) registration card, as long as the retailer provides--at the point-of-sale--a postage-paid replacement card that has all the information required by S5.8 (model name or number and date of manufacture of the restraint), or as long as the retailer itself registers the purchaser with the manufacturer. The purpose of the requirement that the registration form be attached to the child restraint is to increase the likelihood that the purchaser will notice the card. The purpose of the requirements to have the relevant information pre-printed on the card and to provide postage is to make the registration process as easy as possible, to increase registration rates. These purposes would be met by a retailer's providing the necessary information on the form and handing the form to the purchaser, or by registering the purchaser at the time of sale. The requirement for a card would not be met by the retailer simply informing the purchaser to telephone the manufacturer to register the restraint. Additionally, the requirements in S5.8 for pre-printed information would not be met by handing the purchaser a generic registration card that does not have the required information or postage.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/2/02

ID: nht71-1.3

DATE: 06/22/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requesting clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location." Your letter lists seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an "equally accessible location" under the standard.

The phrase "glove compartment door or equally accessible location" is intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. However, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.

Please let us know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

June 2, 1971

Douglas W. Toms Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

This is to request the interpretation of the words "equal accessible" in S4.3 placard of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

S4.3 specifies "A placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location, shall display the -----." In meeting this requirement, the design of the instrument panel or the glove compartment door some times necessitates us to seek the location for the placard somewhere other than the glove compartment door. We would understand that the places such as the following are considered to be "equally accessible locations".

1) Steering column 2) Lower instrument panel pad or knee pad foward of the front seat occupants

3) Sun visor

4) Inside panel surface of the driver's door

5) Door-latch post next to the driver's seat

6) Door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat

7) Door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat

We would like to ask your interpretation or view toward our understanding of this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD. --

Kunitaka Suzuki for Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager

ID: nht76-4.44

DATE: 09/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Joseph G. Bishop -- U.S. Coach Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for information regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to "rumble seat kits" for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulations that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?"

The answer to your question is no.

(2) "What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?"

Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of the vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in completed vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers to provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.

(3) "Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that to your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

We are not aware of any State or local regulations that would preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.

(4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testing facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?" The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

(5) "Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding the manufactuer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.

(6) "Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?"

At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relating to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.

The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation in which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

SINCERELY,

U.S. COACH CORP.

July 7, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator - Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for FMVSS Information Covering Automotive Accessories

U.S. Coach Corporation designs, engineers and manufactures automotive accessory items for installation on passenger car vehicles at distribution centers throughout the United States. Several of our products are installed on vehicles prior to sale to the original owner at the dealer level and are therefore considered O.E.M. products requiring our certification that structural modifications are in compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We are currently designing and developing a "Rumble Seat Kit" that will accomodate two passengers in a seat located in the trunk or luggage compartment of passenger vehicles. My review of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, did not reveal any preclusion of the use of a 'Rumble Seat Option' in passenger vehicles.

It is our intent to proceed with our program to meet the passenger restraint requirements of Standards 208, 209 and 210 with Type 1 seat belts and installed in a manner that compliance with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is preserved.

Since our Corporate intent is to manufacture and sell products that not only meet or exceed all existing Federal Safety Standards but will also afford the highest level of protection to the consumer, we are very interested in any recommendations the N.H.T.S.A. may offer pertaining to occupant protection in open vehicle passenger accomodation specifically in the "Rumble Seat" application.

Would you please respond to the following questions as well as making any comments or suggestions relating to our program:

1. Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulations that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

2. What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

3. Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that to your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

4. Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testing facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?

5. Can the N.H.T.S.A. make any design recommendations related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

6. Is there any furture or pending legislation that may be related to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?

We sincerely appreciate any assistance you may provide in the above matter.

Joseph G. Bishop President

ID: aiam4455

"Dear Ms. Salvio: This responds to your November 10, 1987, lette asking whether the 'Guardian Gate' your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions. The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate 'is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus sic .' The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked 'on both its sides to the vehicle, the cab side, as well as the pump panel side.' The advertisement said this 'dual locking' feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of 'hazardous conditions' (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include). Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: 'Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ...' (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.) From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because 'seating accommodations' referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the 'jump seat area' of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht81-2.14

DATE: 04/14/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Seats Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1981, letter asking about the seat belt testing requirement applicable to seat belts mounted on a seat frame in a school bus.

You state that it is your understanding that seat belts that are mounted on a seat frame in a school bus are not required to be tested simultaneously, because the seat is not considered to be a common mounting. Further, you state that if the seat belts mounted on the frame use a common anchorage, either a common anchorage hole or a U-bolt connecting the two belts, that they would be required to be tested simultaneously.

Your interpretation of Standard No. 222 as it relates to school buses is correct. We would emphasize that this interpretation for the testing of seat mounted seat belts applies only to school buses.

SINCERELY,

Seats

March 20, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Reference: NOA-30

As a final effort to end all misinterpretations of your Department's stand on FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, seat belt requirements; I reference past communication with your department, copies enclosed, on the subject of common and separate mounting and the effect a U-bolt mounting has on the Department's interpretation to common mounting and test requirements. Communications referenced are:

A. Your Department's interpretation to Wayne Corporation, dated March 25, 1977 (Enclosure A)

B. Letter to Mr. Roger Tilton, dated October 31, 1980 (Enclosure B)

C. Your Department's letter NOA-30, dated December 2, 1980 (Enclosure C)

I understand, in layman's language, so all can have, without doubt, the same understanding of the following, that individual seat belt anchorage testing is required as long as each seat belt system has its own anchorage points.

Therefore, the simultaneous testing is totally dependent on the interpretation of common anchorage of two seat belt systems on a two-passenger seat assembly.

It is further my interpretation that the metal seat frame or supporting structure is not considered a common anchorage point, that each seat belt system being attached to the seat frame by its own bolts and nuts, one set for each end of the seat belt system, is not considered common anchorage; and therefore, does not require simultaneous testing of the two seat belt systems, but independent tests of 5,000 pounds. However, if any part of the two seat belt systems are attached by a single bolt and nut on the inside portions or the use of a U-bolt so that the same attaching hardware comes in contact with more than one seat belt system, it is considered a common anchorage point and thus requires simultaneous testing of 5,000 pounds for each seat belt system for a total force of 10,000 pounds.

If you concur with my interpretation on this matter, please sign one copy in the space provided and return to me for my records file.

Harold J. Van Duser Engineering

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

ID: nht90-1.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1990

FROM: James R. Mitzenberg -- Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to J.R. Mitzenberg (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Flxible Corporation is a city transit bus manufacturer and requests an interpretation concerning FMVSS 108, "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment".

An air brake system is used on our bus. As the driver starts to apply the service brake pedal to stop the bus, a service brake stop lamp switch is activated. The stop lamp switch is installed to comply with Section S5.1.7 of FMVSS 121, "Air brake syste ms". The stop lights are activated by the stop lamp switch.

The Flxible Corporation offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking, to increase brake lining life. This retardation is over and above the normal service brake system. The transmission retarder is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated.

A ruling is requested on whether a non-compliance with Section S4.5.4 of FMVSS 108 would result, if the stop lamps were activated by engagement of the retarder, prior to the activation of the service brakes. Section S4.5.4 states: "The stop lamps on eac h vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". The driver is depressing the service brake pedal to stop or slow down the vehicle. However, if the stop lights are activated by the retarder, the stop lights could be illuminated wit hout the service brakes actually being applied during that initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system.

ID: aiam0722

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1972, as to which component included in a list attached to your letter are subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' A related list was left with Mr. Joseph Zemaitis by Mr. Jim Richardson on April 25, 1972, and our letter responds to this list as well. I would point out that, in line with a suggestion you make, consideration is presently being given to an amendment to the standard which could alter our response regarding some of these components.; Paragraph S4. of Standard No. 302 lists the motor vehicle component subject to the standard. The following components you list appear to be among those specifically enumerated in that paragraph and are accordingly subject to the standard: roof bow silencer (headlining), center arm rest cushion and back boards, tape used in seat assembly, (seat cushions, seat backs), and center pillar trim panels (trim panels).; Plastic roof bows to retain hardboard roof trim seem to be closel related to or a different description of headlining and if so, would also be subject to the standard. In addition, 'a roll bar pad assembly' and steering wheel pads would appear to fall within the phrase, '. . . padding . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Stereo speaker grills and cones incorporated into a door or rear shelf would be considered part of a 'trim panel' and 'compartment shelf,' respectively.; The following components from your list would not be subject to th standard unless they are '. . .any other materials . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash': fresh-air deflector, instrument panel end cap, pinch welt, control knobs, transfer case shift lever gasket, dome lamp bezel and lens, 'A'. 'B', 'C', and 'D' post covers, instrument cluster lens, heater/air conditioning distribution ducts, defroster nozzle, defroster and air conditioner outlets, assist straps - door or instrument panel mounted, steering wheel rim material, and wood grain overlay adhered to gauge panel.; The following items that you list are not enumerated in S4.1, and a you state they are not energy absorbing, would not be subject to the standard: front face of instrument panel and glove box door, and cover for steering wheel rims. Finally, based on your description of both roof-silencer pads and dash pads, they would not be subject to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4160

Dear Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from Congressma Howard Wolpe who contacted you on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Dennis D. Furr of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Furr wrote to Congressman Wolpe with several questions pertaining to the regulations we administer for school buses. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Furr's concerns regarding school bus safety.; I would like to begin with some background discussion of our school bu regulations. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses that were issued separately under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Vehicle Safety Act') and the Highway Safety Act. The first set, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems and occupant crash protection, rollover protection, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977 and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each person manufacturing or selling new buses must ensure that the vehicles comply with our school bus safety standards if intended for school use.; Some of Mr. Furr's concerns involve one of our school bus safet standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Mr. Furr believes that some State laws permit excessive numbers of children to be transported in school buses which he contends can result in unsafe seating configurations (such as a row of bench seats with one inch of aisle space). He suggests revising Standard No. 222 to require a 'three-two seating arrangement,' which we assume refers to school bus seat design and positioning.; We believe that an amendment to Standard No. 222 along the line suggested by Mr. Furr is not warranted. We are not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem with current school bus seating configurations or that manufacturers are or have been placing bench seats in a manner that prevents or impedes access through school bus aisles. In accordance with current requirements of Standard No. 222, manufacturers must provide high levels of crash protection for each designated seating position in their school buses, regardless of the configuration of a vehicle's seating. School bus seats are also subject to requirements ensuring access to school bus exits. The possibility that a State might permit loading school buses over the vehicles' rated seating capacity would not affect the manufacturers' and sellers' responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that their school buses comply with this and other applicable safety standards.; As to Mr. Furr's concerns about school bus seat dimensions, please se the enclosed copy of a letter sent by NHTSA to Senator Donald Riegle, Jr., who contacted us with a similar inquiry on Mr. Furr's behalf regarding Standard No. 222's requirements for seat configuration.; The second suggestion from Mr. Furr was to amend Standard No. 222 t require safety belts for school bus passengers. Standard No. 222 currently does not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds) because large school buses are already required to provide high levels of protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; Since large school buses already offer substantial protection t passengers, we believe that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. However, we do not prevent State and local governments from ordering safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in new school buses.; Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed i NHTSA's publication entitled, 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' (June 1985). I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; It appears from Mr. Furr's several suggestions for amending Standar No. 222 that his primary concern is with State regulations specifying how many children are permitted to be carried on school buses. It might be helpful to keep in mind a distinction between performance requirements, which apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are set by NHTSA, and operational requirements for school buses, which apply to bus users and are set by the States. We have recommendations for school vehicle use requirements, which I will discuss below in connection with the balance of Mr. Furr's letter.; Mr. Furr's other questions relate to the second set of regulations w issued for school buses under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, comprise recommendations for operating school buses and apply to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), which Mr. Furr references, includes recommendations that States provide seating accommodations of minimum specified dimensions for each school bus occupant and that States coordinate seating plans to eliminate standees. Each state determines how it will include Program Standard No. 17's guidelines in its highway safety program, and this agency does not insist on adoption of the standard.; Mr. Furr asks about Michigan's implementation of Program Standard No 17. Since Michigan state officials have informed him that the State has chosen not to adopt the standard, Mr. Furr asks if Michigan has either disregarded Federal funds or has accepted Federal funding and neglected to comply with Program Standard No. 17.; The answer to both of those questions is no. NHTSA administers annuall highway safety grant funds to the States to enable States to establish and implement their highway safety programs in accordance with the program standards we issued. In qualifying for Federal funding under our grant program, States are given discretion about adopting Program Standard No. 17. Michigan is thus not subject to sanctions for receiving Federal funding for its highway safety program in the absence of its implementation of that standard.; In a related comment, Mr. Furr suggested NHTSA withhold highway safet funds to any State that does not require the use of safety belts on school buses. As explained above, NHTSA's funding program for highway safety programs does not penalize States for implementing Standard No. 17 in the manner in which they have chosen. Further, it would be inappropriate for NHTSA to impose sanctions against States that do not require safety belts on large school buses since we do not believe safety belts for passengers on those vehicles are necessary at this time.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have any further questions.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed

ID: nht88-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Ohdaira Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21115 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Ohdaira:

This responds to your December 16, 1987 letter asking several questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to "swivel type front seats" installed in new compact passenger vans. I regret the delay in responding. Swivel seats are not prohibited by Standard No 207. However, under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and upper torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat in any position in which the seat would be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, including the rearward facing position.

Your letter explains that Isuzu is interested in manufacturing some of its vehicles with swivel seats for the driver and front outboard passenger. The seats can be rotated in any direction and self-locked into either a forward-facing or a rearward-facing direction. A release control is provided allowing the seat to be rotated into a new position. You state that Isuzu tentatively plans to install lap and upper torso belt assemblies with emergency-locking retractors that "meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat" since the capability of the seats to face rearward is "just a secondary function."

You first ask for confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 207 does not prohibit the installation of front outboard swivel seats. Your understanding is correct. Our standards do not require seats on vehicles other than large school buses to b e forward-facing and thus do not thereby expressly prohibit installation of swivel seats.

Your letter raises the issue of whether the swivel seat installed at the front outboard passenger seating position must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and thus provide lap and upper torso restraints only for the forward-facing position (as opposed to what you term the "secondary" or rearward position). Paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 states, in pertinent part: . . . The lap belt of any seat belt assembly furnished in accordance with S4.1.1 and S1.1.2 shall adjust by means of an em ergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male and the upper torso restraint shall adjust by means o f an emergency-locking retractor or a manual adjusting device that conforms to S571.209 to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 5th-percentile adult female to those of a 95th-percentile adult male with the seat in any position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position. . . . (Emphasis added.)

The quoted reference to seat "position" in the excerpt from S7.1.1 is not limited to the positions along the vehicle longitudinal centerline to which a seat can be adjusted while forward-facing. We interpret the term as referring also to seat orientation , including the rearward-facing position or any other direction the seat is capable of facing, provided that the seat can be placed in those positions while the vehicle is in motion. Thus, we believe that a front outboard swivel seat must have lap and up per torso restraints that fit the occupant of the seat while the seat is in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. Starting September 1, 1991, light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with manual safety belts for the driver and front seat passenger seating position will have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 in a dynamic crash test. A front outboard swivel seat would have to comply with those requirements with the seat in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion.

We have limited our interpretation to positions in which a seat may be occupied while the vehicle is in motion for the following reasons. The purpose of requiring a seat belt assembly to meet the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 208 with the seat in any position is to ensure that adequate occupant crash protection would be provided to the occupant of the seat regardless of the position he or she chooses for the seat. However, the safety goal of ensuring adequate crash protection for vehicle occup ants relates only to positions in which a seat may be occupied when a vehicle is involved in a crash, i.e., the positions in which a seat may be occupied while a vehicle is in motion. If the swivel seat you plan to install for the front outboard seating position can only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion, then it need meet Standard No. 208's requirements only at forward facing positions and need not conform with the standard's requirements at positions facing in other directions.

In your letter, you suggested the possible ways to limit the rearward-facing capabilities of a front outboard swivel seat. First, you suggested that the vehicle could be manufactured with an interlock system that would prevent the vehicle from starting u nless the front passenger seat faces forward. In our opinion, this system would not sufficiently ensure that the swivel seat would be used only in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. An occupant of the seat could swivel his or her seat once the vehicle has started and could thus face rearward without the benefit of lap and upper torso restraints.

Your second suggestion has to manufacture the vehicle such that the front passenger seat could swivel rearward only when the driver seat rotated rearward or when the vehicle was "in park." This would prevent the passenger's seat from facing in any direction other than forward while the vehicle was in motion since the driver must face forward to operate the vehicle. We believe that this alternative could satisfactorily ensure that the front outboard p assenger seating position could not face in any direction other than forward while the vehicle is in motion.

In addition to the requirements discussed above, we note also that Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would require the front outboard swivel seat to have seat belt anchorages for a Type II seat belt assembly. The anchorages would have to m eet the standard's strength requirements (S4.2), and those for their location (S4.3) provided that the safety belt will not be dynamically tested pursuant to Standard No. 208's requirements. Anchorages for a front outboard swivel seat that can be occupie d in its rearward facing position while the vehicle is in motion could be tested to the requirements of 54.2 by the agency with the seat in either the forward or rearward facing position.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December, 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. S. W. Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: Swivel Type Seats - Interpretation

This letter is intended to seek your agency' s advice on the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) as they related to the swivel type front (first row) seats which Isuzu Motors is planning to use for its compact passenger vans.

This van will have two swivel seats in the first row, one for the driver and the other for front seat passenger. These seats are used as forward-facing seats when the vehicle is in motion but while in park they can be swiveled 180 degrees to face rear-wa rd. The swivel mechanism has a self-lock which locks the seat in position as it is turned every 780 degrees. The users manually manipulate a release control to swivel the seat. An example of how these seats are used is shown in the Attachment.

Since the rearward-facing is just a secondary function of these seats, Isuzu Motors is planning to design these seats to meet the requirements applicable to a forward-facing front seat and a forward-facing front outboard designated seating position. that is, FMVSS 207, 208 and 270. Therefore, Type 2 seat belt assemblies with emergency locking retractors will be installed for both the driver and front seat passenger.

The following is our understanding and questions on FMVSS compliance. I would appreciate receiving your answer to these questions along with any comments you may have.

1. FMVSS does not prohibit using swivel seats in the first row or this type or vehicles. Is this understanding correct?

2. While the vehicle is in motion, the front passenger may want to remain facing rearward. Is such a condition permissible under FMVSS?

3. If the front passenger seat were required to face forward while the vehicle is in motion. Isuzu Motors is considering either of the following arrangements. I would request your comments on these plans:

a. The vehicle does not start unless the front passenger seat faces forward.

b. The front passenger seat swivels together with the driver seat and hence faces forward while the vehicle is being driven.

I would appreciate receiving your answer or comments at your earliest convenience since Isuzu would like to start its design work soon.

Sincerely yours,

Takashi Ohdaira Chief Representative Emission & Safety

/jj c: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: aiam3852

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter dated January 20, 1984, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. You asked whether the standard would allow 'a secondary, redundant control placed in the rear seat area facilitating operation of the heating/ventilation and audio system functions by rear seat passengers.' As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your letter indicates that controls for the heating and ventilatio unit would be placed in the rear seating area. You stated that these controls would be 'redundant' and 'secondary.' NHTSA assumes that there will be additional controls for the various functions of the units that are operable by and visible to the driver of the vehicle which meet all applicable requirements of Standard No. 101.; Section 5.2.1 requires identifications of any hand-operated contro listed in column 1 of Table 1 of that section to be visible to the driver. Listed in column 1 are 'Heating and/or Air Conditioning Fan,' and 'Heating and Air Conditioning System.'; You asked about illumination requirements in section 5.3 of FMVSS No 101 that might apply. Again, this section is intended to regulate the controls and displays operable by and visible to the driver, not the controls located in the rear seating area.; In requiring properly located and effectively identified controls an displays under FMVSS No. 101, the agency sought to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the road. Locating secondary controls for passengers in the rear seating area for the heating and ventilation system would not distract the driver from the operation of the motor vehicle. The identification and illumination requirements of sections 5.2 and 5.3 were intended to apply only to the controls operable by and visible to the driver.; You should be aware, however, that section 5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 10 provides that '(t)he intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.' This section applies to all illumination in the passenger compartment that is dependent on activation of the headlights regardless of whether it shines upon a control display, to enable drivers to reduce the glare in the passenger compartment. Items such as radios and clocks which are not regulated by the location and identification requirements of FMVSS No. 101 are subject to the variable intensity requirements of section 5.3.3 if illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated. If the controls located in the rear seating area that operate the heating and ventilation unit are illuminated in this way, the standard requires that the light intensity for such controls must be continuously variable as described in section 5.3.3. You should further note that where you provide a control for the illumination intensity, section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires that it be operable by the driver, and its identification visible to the driver. We interpret this section to require at least one such control to be operable by and its identification visible to the driver. If a manufacturer separately meets the requirement of S5.1 by a properly located and identified control, additional controls that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not prohibited.; You indicated in your letter that Mazda is considering placin secondary controls for the audio system in the rear seating area. Controls and displays for audio systems are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101. The location and identification of these controls and displays are left to the discretion of the manufacturer. Once again, however, if the controls are illuminated when, and only when, the headlights are activated, then the same analysis discussed above applies. At least one control for the illumination intensity must be operable by the driver, with its identification visible to the driver.; In conclusion, FMVSS No. 101 does not prohibit placing the secondar controls for the heating and ventilation unit and audio system in the rear seating area. We would like to point out that there are other safety standards which may apply to your proposal that you should consider when you design these features for your automobiles, such as FMVSS No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel