ID: 1985-02.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1985 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. B. Bruce Bennion, the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Cody, Wyoming. I regret our delay in responding. I understand that Secretary Dole has recently written you on our regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. I hope the following discussion will explain the application of our regulations to your constituent. According to Mr. Bennion's letter, the Park County School District No. 6 purchased a used 1982 American Eagle Model 10 bus in order to transport its students to school activities throughout Wyoming. The school district was recently informed that the operation of the bus violated a Federal regulation issued by this agency, and, accordingly, it ceased operation of the vehicle. Mr. Bennion asked for your help in allowing the school district to use its bus. To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Park County's school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Park County bought a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer had to certify that the bus complied with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Am American Eagle type bus is not manufactured to comply with these standards, and could therefore not be sold for use as a new school bus. Since Park county bought a used bus, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under the Act to prevent the school district from buying a used American Eagle bus for school use. there might, however, be an impediment under State law, if wyoming has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specification to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. We have also issued instructions under HSPS 17 that any bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, the effective date of motor vehicle safety standards on school buses, should comply with those standards. I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. HSPS 17 will affect Park County only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications apply to the activity buses. If Wyoming chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would no insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. Having said this, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the inter-city buses, but it has to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashed. In the years since buses had been a marked improvement in school features when they decide to buy a used school bus. If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to contact my office. Again, my apologies for our delay in responding. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed

ID: 1985-02.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. David Hawkins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician Failure Analysis Associates 10899 Kinghyrst, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77099

Dear Mr. Hawkins:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether buses are excluded from the requirements of section S4.2, section S4.3, and/or the static testing procedures of section S5. You also asked whether there are any other standards which provide criteria for the testing of seating systems on buses.

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.5, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would not be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

With respect to your last question, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for the testing of school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing seating systems of buses.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Failure Analysis Associates

March 6, 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Our File No. HS30089

Dear Mr. Wood:

In regard to our recent phone conversation, I am sending this following list of questions pertaining to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. This standard deals specifically with seating systems--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The purpose and scope of this standard is to "establish requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact".

1. Am I correct in assuming that buses are excluded from: the general performance requirements (S4.2), restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs (S4.3), and also excluded from the static testing procedures outlined in (S5)?

2. If buses are indeed excluded from all of the above, are there any other standards which provide criteria for the testing (visual, static, or dynamic) of seating systems on buses?

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, R. David Hawkins Laboratory Technician RDH:cdk

ID: 1985-02.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ab Tunaverken

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige)

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking information about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.

All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold in the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120; copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rim size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for you to mark your rims with the symbol "DOT." The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Obviously, in the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol "DOT" on the rims.

If either your company or this agency determines that your rims do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim which does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture (aluminum wheels for cars, trucks, and buses) to the agency within 30 days of the date your wheels are shipped into the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The individual designated as the agent may be either a person or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on your company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of your wheels and rims which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

This designation should be received by this agency before you ship your wheels and rims into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Chief council National Highway traffic Safety Administration 400 7th street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 USA

Attn: Steven Kratcke.

Dear Sir!

Tunaverken is a manufacturer of aluminium wheels for cars, trucks and buses.

Since half a year there have been requests from bus and truck manufacturers that they should be able to use our wheels on buses and trucks used in the USA.

We would like to know the requirements in order to use the "DOT" symbol. Are all requirements in the S 571.120 Standard No. 120 Tire selection and Rims for Motor vehicles other than Passenger Cars. What technical support do You need, test reports a.s.o. If the vehicle manufacturer sells the wheels with its own name on the wheel and not ours, should they apply for the "DOT" symbol?

We would appreciate very much if we could get an answer soon.

Yours Sincerely

AB TUNAVERKEN MK:bam

ID: 1985-02.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John K. Park

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Park Consultant, Hyundai Motor Company 7314 Nineteen Mile Road Sterling Heights, Michigan 48074

Dear Mr. Park:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the center high-mounted stoplamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You stated that the Hyundai lamp is "obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm" but that "the effective projective luminous lens area exceeds 4.5 square inches". You asked whether the wiper arm is considered an obstruction to the lamp.

The agency answered a similar question from Mazda in its response to petitions for reconsideration of the stoplamp requirements published on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed). NHTSA advised that compliance of the lamp would be judged with a rear wiping system in the design off position, and that photometric conformance would be judged thereby. The lamp must be positioned in such a way that it will comply when tested at any of the photometric test points specified in the standard with the wiper system in the design off position.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 3, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller.

Regarding FMVSS No. 108: Our High Mounted Stoplamp is obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm according to our current design. The design ensures, however, the effective projected luminous area exceeding 4.5 square inches satisfactory to S4.1.1.41.

Do you consider the rear wiper arm described above as an obstruction to the lamp: We need a correct interpretation from you. I am including a sketch copy for your reference.

Sincerely yours,

John K. Park Consultant to Hyundai Motor Company

JKP/bks

encl.

ID: 1985-02.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Frederick B. Locker, Esq. -- Locker, Greenberg and Brainin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick B. Locker, Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001

This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral prt of the movable shield and may attached during test configuration II.

Your client, Collier-Keyworth, has designed a child restraint that integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.

I suggest, however, that Collier-Keyworth incorporate into the restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.

In the late 1970's there were several child restraint designs which had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.

When amended Standard No. 215 was being promulgated, the agency decided to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.

Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that section S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.

During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shields to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.

The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loaded and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, as would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a "warning" label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure Via Express Mail

April 12, 1985

Steve Kratzke, Esq. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administation Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Collier-Keyworth Safe & Sound II Car Seat

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

We represent Collier-Keyworth Company with regard to the above referenced product.

As per our previous telephone conversations, we are writing in order to obtain clarification from your office regarding the interpretation of Section S 6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) and its applicability to the above referenced product.

49 CFR 571.213 S6.1.2.3.1(c) specifically provides in appropriate part as follows:

"For a child's restraint's system with fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II do not attach any of the child restraint belts unless there are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." (Emphasis supplied).

We understand that standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problems and misuse of child restraints which primarily involves failure to attach buckles and latches, and that to insure that children placed in child restraints are afforded adequate protection, notwithstanding such use, the aforementioned sections of the standard provide that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are "integral" parts of the shield.

The common English definition of "integral" is "formed as a unit with another part".

We believe that a belt which is attached and not easily removed from the shield is an integral part of the shield since the belt is intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and is not subject to the types of misuse which the standard intended to minimize.

Our client continually strives to design, manufacture and produce child restraint systems which provide the utmost protection for a child placed in them and eliminate foreseeable misuse of the product. To this end the Safe & Sound II has been developed. The Safe & Sound II consists of a tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, one piece molded plastic base capable of adjustment for reclined positioning and a harness/shield restraint. The character of the product can be seen from the enclosed instructions and photographs.

The product can be used as a rear facing system for infants and as an upright forward facing system for children 20-40 lbs. Thus, a single purchase enables a consumer to effectively provide protection for his child from birth through 40 lbs. in weight.

The Safe & Sound II Restraint System integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. The strapping together with a molded plastic unit form a continuous loop when the crotch strap is buckled. This arrangement provides a variety of advantages as follows:

1. The system provides a secure 5 point harness system and guarantees that the occupant will be properly positioned within the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface on the impact shield located at the lower torso area provides for maximum distribution of impact forces over a large an area as possible. This shield is also designed to eliminate the need for separate lap belt assembly and avoid the roping, twisting and cutting into the pelvic areas associated with lap belts. Additionally the shields in connection with the straps form a continuous secure loop.

3. The belt of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system and through the impact shield so that at all points there is assurance that the belts will "lie flat".

4. This child restraint system minimizes the potential for misuse and provides for a simple one-step placement of the child into a secure restraint system. A user need only lift the shield, with its integrated straps, place in the child in the system close the shield and snap the safety buckle to the base of the shield.

For your better understanding and reference, I have enclosed a set of instructions for the Safe & Sound II (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, photographs labeled Figure 1 through 9 have been attached to this letter as Exhibit B. The instructions will provide you with a full understanding of the capability of the product and the photographs indicate that the straps, movable shield, and seat are fully integrated with one another.

The photographs indicate the following:

Figure 1 shows the restraint system from a forward view with a buckle attached.

Figure 2 shows the buckle unattached and the shield moved upwards as would be the case prior to the placement of a child within the system.

Figure 3 shows the manner in which the strap forms an unbroken loop around the buckle and the manner in which the buckle snaps to the recessed based clip.

Figure 4 indicates the manner in which the straps flow continuously through the rear seat support and the movable shield assuring that they "lie flat". Figure 5 shows the buckle portion of the strap as positioned when unattached.

Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the manner in which the buckle secures into the seat base. The belt buckles much like an ordinary seat belt.

Figure 7 indicates that the straps are securely attached to the movable shield. See also Figure 4.

Figure 8 shows a view of the bottom portion of the shield showing that even when the straps are pulled upward they are incapable of separating from the shield since a continuous loop and buckle prevent their detachment.

Figure 9 shows the rear view of the restraint system and indicates the manner in which the straps follow through the rear plastic molded back support and are secured around the tubular steel frame. You should note the very end of the strap has a metal clamped piece placed around it to inhibit removal of the strap through the buckle.

We believe that this product incorporates child restraint belts which are "an integral part" of the fixed seat and the movable shield portion of the unit.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the buckle should be attached under the conditions of test configuration II of the Standard.

We would appreciate your opinion regarding this product.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any item in greater detail, please do not hesitate to call. As previously discussed, I am prepared to visit you in Washington with a sample of the Safe & Sound II if you deem it necessary. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, LOCKER GREENBERG & BRAININ, P.C. BY Frederick B. Locker FBL:dd cc: Mr. James R. Fuller

ID: 1985-02.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kent Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 26, 1985

Mr. Wm. Smith Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

I would like a written confirmation pertaining to the D.O.T. Salt Spray procedure. It is my understanding that this procedure calls out 24 hour salt spray vs. 48 hour (in reference to a meeting with Mr. Frank Pepe, United States Testing Company).

Any information pertaining to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Kent R. Cox Compliance Administrator

cc: N. R. Zimmerman

Mr. Kent Cox Allied Automotive Bendix Safety Restraint Division 353 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens, MI 48043

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter of February 26, 1985, concerning the corrosion resistance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies for safety belt attachment hardware. You asked whether the standard uses a 24 hour salt spray test or a 40 hour salt spray test. As explained below, the length of the test depends on what type of safety belt attachment hardware is being tested.

Section S5.2(a) of the standard sets out the test procedures for the corrosion resistance requirements for attachment hardware. The test procedure provides that if the attachment hardware is used at or near the floor of a vehicle, it shall be tested for a 50 hour period, consisting of two 24 hour exposures to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period following each exposure. If the hardware is not used at or near the floor of a vehicle, then it is subjected to a 25 hour test, consisting of one period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Mizuguchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd. 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku Osaka, Japan

Dear Mr. Mizuguchi:

Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.

S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the "width of the webbing in a seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a)." The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.

In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in a tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.

If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did not appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.

I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. No M/M02-28 Osaka Feb, 28, 1985

Messrs. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590, U. S. A.

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement

Dear Mr. Francis Armstrong,

We'd like to ask you the following question. Recently, we are trying to make a soft and flexibility seat belt system, and then the enclosed buckle is one of our sample. This sample is composed of narrow webbing and a little solid plastic boot. However, according to FMVSS NO. 209 item 4.2 (a) "webbing width" describing it's width should be not less than 1.8 inches (about 46mm), the problem of elongation and etc, it is very difficult for us to judge whether our sample does conform to regulation N0.209 on the view of interpretation of the Law or not. Of course, this assembly does meet with the requirement of seat belt assembly prescribing in NO. 209. When this sample is located in vehicle, we are afraid that this sample will touch slightly or enough to person's body. Here, we enclosed please find our sample of buckle side of seat belt assembly herewith. So could you pleases inform us of your official comments very soon. Your earliest written answer will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.

M. Mizuguchi

encl. sample of bucket seat

ID: 1985-02.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning the applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.

If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.2.3(c) of the standard provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt that conforms to Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belts anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

ENCLS.

PRECISION PATTERN INC.

April 18, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

This letter is a request for a ruling concerning a safety standard as applicable to passenger van seating. Specifically, I need to know if putting a stationary side facing seat, with lap seat belts is legal and acceptable.

This side facing seat would be equipped with lap seat belts if necessary. It would be located at the rear of the vehicle, behind the drivers seat.

The vehicles in question are for under 10 passengers, and are of 15', 17', and 20' lengths.

We are in the middle of a design project on this and your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please call 316/ 942-0905 if you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. William Smith in your engineering dept. requested that I consult you for a permanent ruling. His interpretation of the rules would allow the use of this side facing seat.

Russ L. Bomhoff

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-02.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.

In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.

The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.

Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:

1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).

2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

NH/mls

enclosures

ID: 1985-02.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Astle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent Alco Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 724 Logan, Utah 84321

Dear Mr. Astle:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.

Should you need further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alco Manufacturing Company

April 7, 1985

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room #5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve

Reference to the phone call on February 22, 1985, concerning Motor Vehicle Saftey Standard NO. 302, pertaining to manufacturers of after market seat covers.

Does the after market manufacturer need to comply to the Federal Standard by law. Or does it not matter, except for product liability Insurance, if the covers should be flammable enough to cause fire.

I understand that as long as the ultimate consumer installs the covers the product Liability claim are void.

Do the Jobbers, that install covers, need to meet the 302 if they manufacturer covers?

J. C. Penney Company states that the 302 is their standard. Could this be their policy to protect them from any suits?

Please answer the above questions and statements by letter and/or by publication.

Thank You

Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent

kj