ID: aiam5050

"Dear Mr. Milligan: This responds to your letter asking about th Federal requirements that apply to the 'Car Seat Support,' an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints. Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear- facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars. Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The 'standard seat assembly' used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck. The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as 'blocks of wood' and 'rolled up towels' to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support. NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 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 in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain 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 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 ....' 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 should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) 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 are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear- facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product. In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a 'support' to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 571.213-car seat hook-Allen

ID: nht70-2.33

DATE: 10/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Juno Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of August 26, 1970, concerning the compliance of your cut-van motor home with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

You state that the door in the camper body is located so that no portion of a manikin in any designated seating position would project into the door opening in the side view. If, as it appears, you are correct, the door locks and door retention components on that door are not required to comply with Standard No. 206.

You also state that you believe that the doors on the cab comply with Standard No. 206. As a manufacturer of multipurpose passenger vehicles, you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for the compliance of the cab doors with Standard No. 206. Although the van may have been manufactured as a truck, it must, when subsequently converted to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, comply with all multipurpose passenger vehicle standards in effect on the date of manufacturer of your motor home. Therefore, you should(Illegible Word) either from the van manufacturer or by your own tests, that the cab doors comply with Standard No. 206.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: aiam2267

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request fo interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, *Emergency Exits*, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.; You point out that unobstructed passage' through the opening could b considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelepiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.; The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occu when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sherrod Vans, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 29 1983 NOA-30

Sherrod Vans, Inc. 9485 Regency Square Blvd. Suite 330 Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that you do not have to install seat belts on a sofa/bed used in your van conversions if you place a "disclaimer" on the sofa to indicate that it is not to be considered a seat while the vehicle is in motion.

Your assumption is incorrect. You must install seat belts on these sofa seats. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires the installation of either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (combination lap and shoulder belts) belts at each designated seating position in a van, including rearmost seats. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, "designated seating position" is defined 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. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating."

In our opinion, a sofa seat in the rear of a van is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and, therefore, is a designated seating position. The fact that the seat converts to a bed is irrelevant. This will not prevent passengers from using the position for seating when the accommodation is in its unconverted, sofa mode.

A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by placing a sticker on the seat disclaiming that the position is to be used. If this were the case, manufacturers would be able to place stickers on all seats in vehicles and avoid the requirements for seat belts entirely. It is true that Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion to be conspicuously labeled to that effect (paragraph S4.4). However, this labeling requirement is only applicable to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. For example, folding jump seats are not considered designated seating positions under the definition. Therefore, these seats should be labeled as required by Standard No. 207.

In our opinion, you would be able to omit seat belts in this case only if the structure was a permanent, stationary bed which could not be converted into a sofa. Also, please note that under the definition of designated seating position, you would be required to install at least three sets of seat belts if the sofa has hip room greater than 50 inches.

I hope this has eliminated any misunderstanding you may have had concerning this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 1, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

In talking to Mr. Wilson of Transporation we were told we do not have to put seat belts on the sofa we install in our vans if we use a disclaimer.

He also said that by writing you that you would furnish us in writing that as long as we use a disclaimer we do not have to install seat belts on the sofa that is in the rear of the van.

We would appreciate it very much if you could furnish us this as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Sherrod Vans, Inc.

ID: nht87-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R.O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the test procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response.

You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 o f the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track "stop" and move a power bench or bucket seat to its "full forward" and "full down" position. As explained be low, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency ha s recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the iss ue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manuf acturer in its certification tests. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.

You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example, S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7 .4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.

However, the latchplate access requirement of S7.4.4 of the standard does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment positi on. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position used by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation of the requirements of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S10.6 prescribes that the seat shall be "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining th e seat belt latchplate reach envelopes. Based on our review of Standard 208, we interpret "forwardmost adjustment position" to mean that a manually adjustable bench or bucket seat is moved to the forward seat track "stop" and in similar manner a power be nch or bucket seat is moved to its "full forward" position while in the "full down" position. These adjustment procedures provide a consistent test dummy location which we believe is the NHTSA's intent for conducting the prescribed tests for both manual and power seats.

The above interpretation of "forwardmost adjustment" position was discussed with Mr. Edward Jettner of the Office of Vehicle Standards. He concurred with our interpretation, but suggested that we seek confirmation of it.

We believe that the above interpretation is correct based on other discussions of seat adjustment in the standards. Paragraph S7.4.3 of MVSS 208 provides:

S7.4.3, Belt Contact Force, is tested in accordance with S10.7 which, in turn, requires that the user "--position the test dummy in the vehicle in accordance with -- S10.1 or S10.2 and -- S8.1.2 and S8.1.3." S8.1.2 requires that "adjustable seats are -- midway between forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position; (underlined for emphasis)

Paragraph S.7.4.5 adds:

S7.4.5, Retraction, is also "tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 --."

Paragraph S4.3.2 of MVSS 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, similarly provides at a power seat is to be adjusted to full down position:

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. With the seat in its full rearward and downward position . . . . (underlined for emphasis).

From these references, we conclude that for consistency in positioning the test dummy for purposes of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, a power seat is adjusted to the forwardmost "full downward" position and a manual seat track is adjusted to the forwardmost position. We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

R.O. Sornson

ID: 15951-1.pja

Mr. Mike Laws
Vice President/General Manager
Interstate Trailers, Inc.
1102 Interstate 20 West
Arlington, TX 76017

Dear Mr. Laws:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The answer is no, therefore a guard is required.

As shown in the drawings you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are essentially of a flatbed design, equipped with a bed that hydraulically tilts to a 13 degree angle so that construction equipment may be loaded. At the back of the bed is a long triangular full width "approach plate" that allows construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the bed. When the bed is lowered into the horizontal position, for transit, the approach plate is hydraulically lowered to droop down slightly, to a position in which the lower edge of the plate is 19 inches off the ground. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless and you ask if a guard is required.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to your approach plate, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. First, the approach plate does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it approach ramp does not contribute to supporting cargo load. Further, the approach plate is not frame structure. It does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. The approach plate is not locked into another frame structural member in any manner. Neither the approach plate nor the steel plate arms attaching the approach plate to the sides of the trailer bed are of a similar size or strength to the other frame components. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the chassis, and the trailer is not a low chassis vehicle.

We turn now to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.⁽²⁾ Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment, and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration.

Another option to consider is whether your approach plate could "be" the guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach plate sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach plate itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps some of these solutions would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough.

ID: 2251y

Mr. James A. Cowan, Jr.
Director of Engineering
Crown Coach Incorporated
13799 Monte Vista Avenue
Chino, CA 91710-5513

Dear Mr. Cowan:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 specifically requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback from extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref: VSA d:l/9/90

ID: nht72-4.12

DATE: 03/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1972, in which you requested our interpretation as to how seats with varying numbers of adjustment positions are to be adjusted to the position "midway between the forwardmost and rear most position," as specified in S8.1.2 of Standard 208.

The intent of the "midway" provision in S8.1.2 is that the seat must be placed as nearly as possible at the midpoint of its fore and aft travel. Since the standard also provides that the seat is in an adjustment position -- a notch -- there is a possibility that there will not be a notch at the exact center of the range. In such cases, the seat is placed in the notch nearest the midpoint of the seat's travel. In your case A, if the notches are evenly spaced, the middle notch would probably be the nearest to the midpoint and would therefore be used. In your case B, if the two middle notches are not equidistant from the midpoint, the nearest notch would be used. If they are equidistant, the rearmost notch would be used. It is not necessary to make a special notch.

ID: nht90-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES A. COWAN, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INCORPORATED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cowan:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 specifically requires that "[a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door." S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback fr om extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue.

Sincerely,