ID: aiam5478

"Dear Ms. Hawker: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as 'bunting' that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carrier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. You believe that, when properly installed, 'the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism.' 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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for 'child restraint systems,' FMVSS 213, 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 FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting. While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product 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, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in 30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the straps in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an obvious safety problem. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4060

Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1985, asking about the effec of our regulations on several components you wish to install in the interior of a passenger car. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must b certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you are installing the components described in your letter in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since you are modifying the interior of the passenger car, you must ensure that the vehicle will still comply with Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*, a copy of which is enclosed.; If you are making these alterations to a used vehicle, then you, as commercial business, would be covered by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with Federal safety standards. Thus, in installing the components you described, you cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201 or any of our other standards.; The potential effect of Standard No. 201 on each of the components yo asked about is discussed below.; *Front and rear seat cooler consoles*. S3.1 of the standard sets performance requirements for the instrumen panel. S3.1.1(a) of the standard specifically provides that the instrument panel requirements do not apply to console assemblies. We would consider both the front and rear seat coolers to be console assemblies and thus exempt from the requirements of S3.1.; S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblie located in an instrument panel, a console assembly, a seat back, or a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The doors in the front and rear consoles would have to meet this requirement.; *Seat back fold-down tables*. S3.2 of the standard sets performance requirements to limit injurie caused when rear seat occupants strike the seat backs in front of them. You would have to ensure that the seat backs would still comply with S3.2 when the fold- down tables are installed.; The fold-down tables mounted in the seat back and the door do not hav to meet the requirement in S3.3 for interior compartment doors. However, since both those items are hinged surfaces which could fly open in a crash and pose a hazard to an occupant in a crash, we urge you to ensure that the tables will be adequately secured in a crash.; S3.5 of the standard sets requirements for armrests. You would have t ensure that the vehicle will still comply with S3.5 when the fold-down table is installed in the door.; *TV/VCR Cabinet* There are no requirements that apply to the TV/VCR cabinet. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0679

Dear Mr. Rose: This is in reply to your letters of March 23, 1972, and March 27, 1972 concerning our previous letter to you dated March 10, 1972.; We recognize your contribution to safety and your deep persona involvement in child harnesses. Harnesses, such as yours, offer many desirable features. The child is free to move about, and he is adequately restrained if the harness system is properly adjusted and anchored. Effective harness systems can probably be produced at modest cost.; There certainly can be no objection to the upper torso restrain provided by a good harness system. Indeed, this is a very important feature which is required because of the child's special skeletal structure.; On the other hand, restraints which are anchored to inadequat structures or which allow excessive motion of the child in a crash cannot be condoned. Actual thirty mile-per-hour, sixteen g dynamic sled tests of child harnesses anchored as you recommend have shown that a severe problem exists with the anchorage system. Quoting the University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute Report, *Child Seat and Restraint Systems Test Program*, DOT/HS-800-376, in the test at 30 mph the adult seat back broke away due to the load imposed by the restraint system tether. This allowed the dummy to move forward far enough to cause potential contact with the vehicle interior.' This test was conducted using a heavy duty Bostrom truck bucket seat and utilized only the thirty-pound, three-year-old child dummy, restrained by a Sears small harness. The present typical seat back strengths are, thus, inadequate to support a harness system which depends upon the seat back. It is our intention to encourage improvements in seat back strength for automobile production by future rule making action.; Since your harness is recommended for children up to fifty pounds an since most passenger car seats are not as strong as the test seat, we expect the situation to be even more serious in realistic usage conditions which also normally encounter appreciably higher load levels in thirty mile-per-hour crashes. This is why we object to your system of anchorage. Thus, our position is as stated in our previous letter to you.; We hope that you will consider other methods of anchoring your chil harness which will prevent seat back failure and resulting excessive occupant excursions.; We appreciate your sincere interest and concern in this matter. W emphatically do believe that child harnesses play a vital role in child restraints.; Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Deputy Administrator

ID: 77-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request for confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.

When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement, such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of "contact area" the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represents splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the head or knee form.

In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicle standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.

However, the requirement that the seating conform as it is installed does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.

In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does not intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.

SINCERELY,

November 2, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to discuss two problems associated with FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which are caused by the technical state of the art of seat impact testing and to ask for approval to proceed based on the two proposals described below.

First problem - Contact Area S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2

Background 1. FMVSS 222 requires a headform contact area of 3 square inches when impacted at 5 feet per second and a knee form contact area of 3 square inches impacted at 16 feet per second.

2. The requirement of 3 square inches is based on bio-mechanical data and is, therefore, not disputed.

3. It is our understanding that the feasibility of the 3 square inch requirement was verified based on impact tests on foam without upholstery.

4. It is believed that the problems of measuring contact area with upholstery were not anticipated.

Problems of Contact Area with Upholstery:

1. The tension of the upholstery is virtually uncontrollable as it is affected by many factors including tolerances of the seat back, foam pad, and upholstery; installation techniques; temperature; etc.

2. There are several types and weights of upholstery offered as standard equipment and as options. Various state specifications require different upholstery materials.

3. The grain of the upholstery varies and can affect contact area results.

4. The method of determining contact area has not been defined and such factors as transfer mediums, area measurement techniques, and documentation methods can cause large variations in results.

Example of Effects of Upholstery on Contact Area:

The following table shows the significant difference that the use of upholstery can make at several impact locations of Blue Bird drawing #0833079 (copy attached). These contact areas were determined using black spray paint sprayed on the head and knee form as the transfer medium, with the imprint transferred to tracing paper, and the area measured with a Planimeter. Figure Impact Location Contact Area (square inches) Number Dwg. No. 0833079 with 42 oz. upholstery Direct transfer Bounded by tangent lines 1 H5 2.76 3.20 2 H7 2.53 4.85 3 H11 2.53 5.24 4 H12 2.14 4.29 5 K3 wall side 2.92 X 6 K3 aisle side 3.26 X 7 K4 center 2.45 X

Figure no upholstery Number Direct transfer 1 8.75 2 8.30 3 9.90 4 10.90 5 5.80 6 5.89 7 5.05

Discussion: 1. It is felt that the contact area problems associated with upholstery are measurement problems.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the contact area requirement with or without upholstery, however, due to inadequate measurement techniques we cannot verify compliance when upholstery is used.

3. Obviously, we meet the spirit of the requirement since it was based on 3 square inches of contact area without upholstery and we accomplish this in all areas with a significant margin.

4. The problems of contact area with upholstery have been discussed with the Office of Crash Worthiness and Office of Standards Enforcement on several occasions. The latest of these were meetings on October 28th and 29th, 1976.

Recommendations:

1. Because the contact area problem is one of measurement methodology, we recommend that the NHTSA develop a proper methodology and incorporate it into the standard through the Rulemaking Procedure.

2. Since in the meantime we must release designs, commit tooling, and order material we are asking for approval to proceed based on a conservative approach of defining contact area as that area circumscribed by tangent lines drawn between points of direct paint transfer. See figures 1 to 7.

Second Problem - Impact Test Inside Bus S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, S5.3.2.2

Background: 1. The NHTSA has indicated it plans to conduct all seat performance tests including impact test inside a bus body.

2. Blue Bird Body Company agrees that it is most desirable to conduct impact tests inside a bus body, however, impact testing inside a bus requires a compact, portable, and adjustable test fixture incorporating a fired projectile.

3. All of the impact testing conducted at Blue Bird Body Company has been done outside a bus body using cable suspended pendulums to impact seats. The seats are mounted on bus body floor sections secured to rigid fixturing. The fixturing allows the seat to be positioned to different impact locations and different impact angles in order to meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 ". . . when any contactable surface . . . is impacted from any direction . . . ."

Problems: 1. Blue Bird Body Company has done development work on a pneumatic fired impact testing device but have not been able to perfect one because of the rigid requirements such a device must meet.

2. The primary factors that have prevented us from perfecting a successful testing device are:

a. The standard requires that the headform exhibit no resonant frequencies below 3000 Hz and the knee form, no resonant frequencies below 1800 Hz and specifies the data channel class for each. Section S6.6.2 and S6.7.2.

b. The standard specifies the total equivalent weights and the shapes of both the head form and knee form. Sections S6.6 and S6.7.

c. The measurement of Force-Distribution S5.3.1.3 requires a very sensitive data acquisition system capable of accurately sampling low level data (0 to 13.04 "G's" compared to up to 200 "G's" for the H.I.C. requirement) at a high sampling rate (approximately 10,000 data samples per second).

3. Within the above size, shape, and weight requirements we have been unable to build a testing device that had sufficient rigidity of the head and knee forms and the supporting and guiding fixtures to eliminate undesirable and intolerable signal inputs produced by the test fixture, with the exception of a cable suspended pendulum which cannot be used inside a bus body.

Examples of Fixturing Induced Signals:

1. The top half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our cable suspended impact pendulum. Note the first portion of the trace, 0 to 13.04 G's, which is the area of the curve used in determining Force Distribution, is free of fixture imparted - low amplitude - high frequency signal and can be accurately sampled at a 10 KG sampling rate by a computer in order to calculate a Force Distribution value.

2. The lower half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our most successful pneumatic fired impact fixture. The signal, prior to and during the critical initial part of the impact, has a low amplitude, high frequency signal superimposed on it. This is believed to be a fixture imparted signal. This signal cannot accurately be used manually or with a computer to determine a Force Distribution value.

Discussion:

1. It is felt that resonant frequency and fixture imparted signal are fixturing problems and because of the complexity and interplay of these problems we know of no impact test system, fired projectile or otherwise, that could be used inside a bus at all angles and at all impact locations required to comprehensively evaluate seat impact performance.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the impact requirements because impacting a seat mounted on a rigid fixture is considered to be a more severe test than impacting a seat mounted in a bus.

3. Obviously we meet the spirit of the requirements since we are testing under conditions we believe to be more severe than intended and have spent considerable effort and resources in trying to develop new test fixturing.

Recommendations:

1. Since we know of no other alternative we recommend that Impact Testing for Compliance be performed outside a bus on a "rigid" fixture which can be used to orient the seat in front of the impact form. We request immediate rulemaking action be taken by the NHTSA to require impact testing be performed outside the bus.

2. For the reasons mentioned earlier we are asking for approval to proceed based on impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

In Summary: May we have immediate approval to:

1. Proceed based on tangentially circumscribed contact areas,

2. Proceed based upon impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam0686

Dear Mr. Waldman: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1972, on the subject o the test procedures of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 210.; Your first question is whether the center of gravity referred to i S5.1.2 of Standard 207 is the center of gravity of the seat bench alone or the center of gravity of the seat bench in combination with the supporting structure. It is often a close question in recreational vehicle seating where the seating system ends and the vehicle structure begins. In cases such as the one depicted in Attachment 1 to your letter, where the supporting structure consists of a storage cabinet that is integrated into the interior structure of the vehicle, it is our opinion that the storage cabinet should not be considered in determining the weight and center of gravity of the seat bench under S5.1.2.; Your second question asks us to concur in your opinion that separat tests are not required under Standards 207 and 210 when identical seats are installed in different vehicles. Our reply is that the number of tests you perform is a matter for you to decide, we do not, as a rule, comment on the adequacy of a test program. The standards do not require a manufacturer to test his product in a specific manner or with a specific frequency, so that failure to test is not, in itself, a violation. If our Office of Standards Enforcement should happen to test one of the vehicles in question, however, and it fails when tested in accordance with the standard, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless he can establish that he exercised due care in the design and manufacturer of the vehicle. Whatever your decision on the subject of testing, it should be carefully made.; Our reply to your third question follows the reasoning set forth above If we conduct a test in accordance with S4.2(d) and the seat fails, the manufacturer will have to establish that he exercised due care in making that seat. Without a set of specific facts before us, we cannot say what the result of our inquiry would be.; The label proposed for the rotating seat to indicate that it is not t be used while the vehicle is in motion except in the forward facing position would be an acceptable label under Standard 207.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2193

Dear Mr. Moss: Thank you for your January 19, 1976, letter asking for furthe explanation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) position on a school bus seating standard that specifies both passive compartmentalization and the installation of seat belt anchorages.; The NHTSA has issued its school bus seating standard (Standard No. 222 *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*) in a form that requires compartmentalization of vehicle occupants but does not require installation of seat belt anchorages. There is not sufficient information in the record on which to determine what percentage of school districts would utilize seat belts. The limited evidence available to the NHTSA indicates that only a small fraction of school buses would have belts installed and properly used, and that the decision to mandate seat belt anchorage installation should await further information as to the extent to which belts would be installed and properly used.; The issue of whether the NHTSA is on 'safe legal ground in mandating requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials' has become less urgent in view of the standard's promulgation without anchorage requirements. I would like to respond generally that the NHTSA has always held the opinion in construing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) that safety performance requirements that require further action by vehicle users are entirely appropriate. While some safety devices (such as bumpers) are in place and operate passively, most devices, (such as lights and seat belts) require occupant action to gain protection. Seat belt anchorages require more action than simple use to gain their benefits, but this does not appear to be a legally significant distinction. In this case, I decided that substantial controversy over the appropriateness and legality of this protection should not continue to create uncertainty over the ultimate form of the standard, endangering the ability of manufacturers to comply with Congress' maximum 9-month leadtime for upgrading school bus seating systems. We have, of course, left the issue of restraints in school buses.; While the decision on passive restraints could negate the value of sea belt training during the adult years, it should be noted the NHTSA is not proposing passive protection for the rear seats of passenger cars where children are encouraged to ride. They would need to use the seat belts provided to increase their protection in a crash.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam1982

Dear Mr. Crampton:#This is in response to your letter of July 3, 1975 forwarding a copy of an earlier letter that evidently was never received by us. You asked whether a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, needs to have a seat at the auxiliary position, and whether access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position is required.#We consider the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position. The answer is no, therefore, to both of the above questions.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1983

Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of July 3, 1975, forwarding a cop of an earlier letter that evidently was never received by us. You asked whether a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls, needs to have a seat at the auxiliary position, and whether access to such controls as the heater, wipers, and lights from this position is required.; We consider the standards relating to the driver's position as relatin to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position. The answer is no, therefore, to both of the above questions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4005

Dear Mr. Manthorpe: Thank you for your June 17, 1985 letter concerning this agency' regulations for school buses. I hope the following information is of assistance.; We are aware that Pennsylvania recently amended its definition of 'bus' in Act 1984-146 to adopt the Federal definition of that term. As a result of that change in definition, school vehicles that are capable of carrying 11 persons (including the driver) are now considered 'school buses' under Pennsylvania law and must conform to the State's requirements for school buses. Those vehicles had not been previously considered as school buses, and there are apparently a large number of those vehicles used to carry school children which do not comply with Pennsylvania's requirements.; In letters from your Department to school districts and school bu contractors, it was suggested that seats could be removed or blocked off to restrict a vehicle's seating capacity to fewer than 10 passengers. In that way, the altered vehicle would no longer be a 'school bus' under Pennsylvania State law subject to State school bus regulations. You asked us whether those modifications would be acceptable under Federal law.; Some background on applicable Federal law may be helpful. The Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) authorizes this agency to establish safety standards for *new* motor vehicles. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons (including the driver) is considered a 'bus,' and is considered to be a 'school bus' if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). A 'school bus' must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses, and also those specifically applicable to 'school buses,' including Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. 49 C.F.R. 571.220, 571.221, 571.222. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer persons, it is considered under our regulations to be either a 'passenger car' or a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' (MPV), 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b), and must meet safety standards applicable to its vehicle type.; Under Federal law, the consequences of removing a seat from 10-passenger bus depend on when the seat is removed and on the person who removes it. If a manufacturer or dealer restricts the passenger capacity of a *new* bus to less than 10 before the vehicle is sold or delivered to the owner, then that manufacturer or dealer is considered an 'alterer' under our regulations. The requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 C.F.R. 567.7, *Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles*. The person who reduces the passenger capacity of a bus to nine or fewer before the vehicle's first sale changes the vehicle's classification to that of a MPV. As a result, the person modifying the new vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would entail the installation of safety belts at all seating positions. (49 C.F.R. 571.208 S4.2, S4.3.); If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, ou regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply. However, there are still statutory restrictions on the types of modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) provides: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...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...' In the case of a vehicle sold as a school bus, this provision means that a commercial alterer (in those specified categories) may remove a passenger seat, but must assure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable school bus standards after the seat has been removed. Section 109 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).; The prohibition against rendering inoperative in section 108(a)(2)(A of the Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a State, which modifies its own vehicles. The regulations we issued under the Vehicle Safety Act would not restrict, in any manner, how an owner may use its vehicle. Therefore, school bus owners may restrict the seating in their vehicles without regard to any Federal regulation administered by this agency.; Since NHTSA's authority under the Vehicle Safety Act extends primaril to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use, the States retain the authority to determine the requirements under which motor vehicles may operate. If the State determines that vehicles originally manufactured to carry 10 or more school children may be operated as school vehicles when modified to carry only nine or fewer children, then there are no Federal statutory or regulatory impediments to owner modifications of this type. However, it remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We therefore urge the States to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with those standards for larger vehicles (i.e., those originally manufactured to carry more than 10 persons).; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact thi office if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 10392

Paul N. Wagner, President
Bornemann Products, Inc.
402 Industrial Drive
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of September 28, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of S4.2.1 in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Section S4.2.1 states

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

Your questions and our response to each follow.

1) Can the agency respond specifically to what the seat adjustment refers to? Does this mean only that once a seat recliner (used only for comfort), or a seat slide track, is positioned at its normal driving position, or appropriate testing position, it may not be moved until the completion of the test?

Or, does it mean that while the static test is conducted a recliner mechanism, for example, can not change position during the test, due to bending or twisting, or release of internal parts, even though the frame did not break during the test? In other words, the recliner may bend or twist, but the seating structure remained intact, despite deformation of the recliner mechanism.

Section S4.2.1 requires a seat, with one exception, to remain in the position to which it was adjusted while the force specified in S4.2 is applied. The exception is that vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats may occur while the load is applied. Section S4.2 requires a seat to withstand certain specified forces. NHTSA has previously stated that S4.2 "allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained."

(See August 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.) NHTSA would not consider any deformation allowed by S4.2 (for example, bending or twisting) by itself to be a change in adjustment position. However, if bending or twisting resulted in the seat moving from one adjustment position to another (for example, a change in detent position within the adjustment mechanism), there would be a change in adjustment position.

In the example provided in your letter, the adjustment position of the seat back recliner mechanism is caused by the gear mechanism being "destroyed," even though the recliner mechanism itself does not separate from the seat. It appears that this scenario involves more than deformation as the seat back is free to move to a variety of adjustment positions. Therefore, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1.

2) An integrated seat has several angle adjustments on its recliner, which are only for the purpose of comfort. In reference to the static testing, does the integrated seat need to be tested in its designed riding position, or need it be tested in every possible reclined position?

Both S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) require the seat to withstand the specified load "(i)n any position to which it can be adjusted." The usage of the term "any," when "used in connection with a range of values or set of items," is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." Thus, NHTSA may chose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. Section S4.2(c) incorporates the requirements of S4.2(a) and S4.2(b); therefore, NHTSA may also chose to test an integrated seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:207 d:12/23/94