ID: 10462-2

Mr. John E. Getz
Director, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, Ohio 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you sometimes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10- year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making the trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ownership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trailers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for

purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute trailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/2/95

ID: 10463

Mariano Garcia, Esq.
Ricca & Whitmire, P.A.
Clearlake Plaza - Suite 800
500 South Australian Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Dear Mr. Garcia:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Kawasaki Mule KAF 450-B1, with a top speed of 25 miles per hour, is a motor vehicle. You describe the Mule as an "off-road" light utility vehicle, and enclose a photocopy of what appears to be a Kawasaki brochure describing the Mule.

The Mule is similar to two on and off-road capable vehicles, reviewed by NHTSA for a determination whether the vehicles are motor vehicles. Enclosed are two interpretation letters, one to Mr. Matthew J. Plache, dated December 3, 1991, and one to Mr. Hiroshi Kato dated October 31, 1988. Both letters addressed vehicles which could attain a top speed of 25 miles per hour and were not intended by their manufacturers to be used on the public roads.

Both letters describe five criteria which NHTSA applies when determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle. We do not have sufficient information to apply the five criteria to the Mule. However, we believe that if the facts are known, the criteria are easily applied, and a determination whether the Mule is a motor vehicle may be made.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/17/95

ID: 10464tra

Ms. Lois Castillo
Travel Tray, Inc.
P.O. Box 395
Pleasant Grove, UT 84062

Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is designed to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seats," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray attached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, 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, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative ... any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable 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 car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 30122.

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 consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:1/9/95

ID: 10466

Mr. Clay F. West
Garvey, Schubert & Barer
Eighteenth Floor
Second & Seneca Building
1191 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2939

Dear Mr. West:

This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994, requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a "windshield cleaning device." As your letter describes, "(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively."

I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. 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

Enclosures

ref:104 d:11/9/94

ID: 10469

Mr. Donald T. Hoy
Senior Marketing Manager
Clean Air Partners
17301 Rimrock Drive
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Mr. Hoy:

This responds to your letter addressing this agency's regulations about converting school buses to run on a blended fuel combining diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG). You stated that your company manufactures a conversion system that bolts on the original equipment manufacturer's diesel engine. While the diesel engine system remains intact and operates as designed during the dual fuel cycle, your conversion system serves to reduce the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its place. You further state that the system automatically reverts back to 100% diesel with no interruption in driveability if the supply of CNG is depleted.

You asked two questions about converting diesel powered school buses to dual fuel school buses that run on both conventional diesel fuel and alternative fuels such as CNG or LNG. You first ask whether there are any Federal regulations preventing the conversion of a school bus from diesel to a dual fuel school bus. You then ask if there is any significance as to when the conversion system is installed on a school bus with regard to vehicle certification.

Before answering your specific questions, let me provide you with background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our regulations. NHTSA is authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by diesel fuels and those powered by CNG. Specifically, FMVSS No. 301 regulates the fuel system integrity of gasoline and diesel powered light vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 10,000 pounds and all gasoline and diesel powered school buses regardless of GVWR. In addition, FMVSS No. 303 regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. Finally, FMVSS No. 304 regulates the integrity of CNG fuel containers. While FMVSS No. 301 has been in effect since the 1970s, the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304 becomes effective on September 1, 1995 and the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 303 becomes effective on March 27, 1995. The agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to vehicles powered by LNG.

In response to your first question, no FMVSS or other NHTSA regulation prohibits the conversion of a diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus. Nevertheless, FMVSS No. 301 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of fuel leakage from the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Similarly, FMVSS No. 303 requires each vehicle subject to the FMVSS, including each school bus, to have a limited amount of pressure drop in the fuel system after being subjected to crash testing. Each school bus with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds is subjected to frontal, rear, and lateral barrier crash tests and each school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more is subjected to a moving contoured barrier crash test. With respect to a dual fuel vehicle, NHTSA explained in the final rule that "NHTSA has decided to require only one test on dual-fuel and bi-fuel vehicles that permits the amount of gaseous leakage specified in the CNG standard plus the amount of liquid leakage specified in Standard No. 301." (59 FR 19648, April 25, 1994.) In other words, after being subjected to the specified test crash or crashes, a dual fuel school bus may not leak more than the amount of fuel leakage permitted in FMVSS No. 301 plus the amount permitted in FMVSS No. 303.

In response to your second question, vehicle fuel system conversions are addressed in certain NHTSA provisions, whose application depends on when the work is done and who does the conversion. Under the statute and NHTSA's regulations, the first consumer purchase is the critical event by which certain responsibilities are specified. If your conversion system were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard once that FMVSS takes effect. If your conversion system were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. This means that if you convert a school bus prior to the first consumer purchase, then you would be responsible for certifying that the school bus as manufactured conforms to all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301 and, once FMVSS No. 303 and 304 take effect, those standards as well.

If you convert a bus after the first consumer purchase, you would not have any certification responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. However, an installer that is a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business would have to ensure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Since all school buses are currently required to comply with FMVSS No. 301, any aspect of the conversion to a dual fuel school bus must not make the diesel school bus more vulnerable to diesel fuel leakage or otherwise impair the school bus' fuel system integrity. After the September 1, 1995 effective date for FMVSS No. 303, any aspect of your conversion to a CNG/diesel school bus to a dual fuel school bus must not make the school bus more vulnerable to fuel leakage.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

With regard to additional requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:303 d:2/27/95

ID: 10478

Mr. James D. Murphy, Jr.
8011 S. Cook Way
Littleton, CO 80122

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a vehicle with two main wheels and two auxiliary wheels may be considered a "motorcycle." As explained below, the answer is yes.

Your letter describes your vehicle's design as having two main wheels, and left and right side auxiliary wheels that are elevated off the ground. You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that the auxiliary wheels are to facilitate vehicle turning, when no more than three wheels would touch the ground.

NHTSA defines "motorcycle" at 49 CFR Section 571.5(b) as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

In a previous letter, NHTSA stated that a two wheeled vehicle whose auxiliary wheels are used only for stabilization in turns is considered a "motorcycle" since the vehicle is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. (See enclosed letter of June 11, 1986 to the NY State Department of Motor Vehicles.) Since your vehicle is also designed to travel with at most three wheels in contact with the ground, we would consider your vehicle a "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:1/3/95

ID: 10491

Mr. Howard J. Levy
Used Tire International
837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your statement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR '393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. '30103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. '30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tires nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#119 d:1/17/95

ID: 003011cmc

Ms. Patricia Cunningham
London Taxi North America
80 Union Avenue
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Ms. Cunningham,

This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:

Except as provided in S5.2.1.2, each child restraint system other than a car bed shall provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back which is an integral part of the system[.]

S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1.

The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/31/03

ID: 003059 bts

Mr. Joe Masci
Pollak Switch Products Division
300 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Masci:

This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below.

1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209.

You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:

[A]ny component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:

[A]ny strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 209)

In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210.

2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements

In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance.

Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b).

S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2).

S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b).

3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware.

You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle.

For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible.

4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required.

We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively.

5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components.

You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.7/16/03





---

[1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986.

ID: 003064 Spain inflatable seat