ID: nht92-8.22

DATE: March 20, 1992

FROM: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Phillips (A39; Std. 202)

TEXT:

As instructed by Mr. Ed Jetner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on March 17, 1992, I am contacting you regarding the FMVSS 202, head restraint standard. The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has scheduled a FMVSS 202 test on April 7, 1992. FMVSS 202 describes a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device." The TRC is recommending the use of the Hybrid III large male dummy manufactured by First Technologies, Model Number H3-95-R with the 1992 pelvis upgrade, to conduct this test. TRC believes this dummy represents the most "state of the art" 95th percentile dummy currently available.

Please advise TRC if the Hybrid III large male dummy is an approved equivalent test device for conducting the FMVSS 202 test. Please respond to the undersigned at 513/666-2011 by April 2, 1992. Thank you for your time with this matter.

ID: nht92-8.23

DATE: March 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wm. Richard Alexander -- Chief, Pupil Transportation, Maryland State Department of Education, Office of Administration and Finance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Wm. Richard Alexander to Mary Versailles (OCC 7021)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point.

Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers."

I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point.

While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.

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

ID: nht92-8.24

DATE: March 16, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Kubehl -- Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/92 from Douglas Kubehl to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6978)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992, concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I an concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would NOT be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) AND to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied.

If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic porion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop.

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

ID: nht92-8.25

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet / Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/92 from Jeff Ruff to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6977)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 10, 1992 requesting advice regarding the location of the upper anchorage for the front passenger seat shoulder belt.

By now, you should have received our reply (dated February 14, 1992) to your previous letter (dated October 30, 1991). In that letter, I explained that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while the agency reviews the petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association to exclude these vehicle from the dynamic crash test requirement. Because this is now a pending rulemaking, the agency cannot discuss what requirements the agency will propose for these vehicles prior to the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). However, as explained in our previous letter, NHTSA is aware of the need of manufacturers such as yourself and your customers to have this matter addressed as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency is proceeding with preparation and publication of the NPRM as quickly as possible.

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

ID: nht92-8.26

DATE: March 16, 1992

FROM: Shigeyoshi Aihara -- Manager, Information Services, Ichikoh America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Shigeyoshi Aihara (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask for your judgment concerning fogging after humidity test of replaceable bulb headlamp specified in FMVSS No.108, paragraph S7.4(i)(6).

Paragraph S.7.4(i)(6) is defined as follows:

"After a humidity test conducted in accordance with paragraph S8.7, the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp shall meet the photometric requirements applicable to the headlamp system under test."

Our questions concern the sentence "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification, and the headlamp ---"

A drawing of our headlamp with on-board aiming system is attached to this letter. The headlamp is a vented system. The bubble indicator cover of types A and B differ as shown in the attached sketches.

Question 1: After the humidity test, both types A and B show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. We think this fogging does not affect the performance of headlamp such as bubble indicator visibility, photometry and others. Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test ?

Question 2: May we understand that "the inside of housing" means the lens and reflector portions?, or Must we understand it to mean the entire inside portion of headlamps?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-8.27

DATE: March 13, 1992

FROM: Wally Herger -- Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Nancy Bruce -- Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger; Also attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Wally Herger (A39; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc., who has requested my assistance regarding difficulties with the Department of Transportation. Transfer Flow, Inc. is a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems. The company's problem stems from the rigid requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75.

It is my understanding that current technology has made it possible to meet required safety standards by utilizing less expensive testing procedures than the FMVSS 301 test, and that less stringent testing is permitted for vehicles over 10,000 GVW and vehicles under 10,000 GVW that have been sold to the end user. If that is indeed the case, then I would very much appreciate your thorough review of the problem faced by Transfer Flow, Inc. Further, I would like to know if it is possible to administratively update these requirements.

I have enclosed a copy of Mr. Gaines letter and related documentation for your information and review. If you require further information, please contact my office or Mr. Gaines directly. I have assigned this case to my staff assistant, Dave Meurer. He can be reached at (916) 893-8363 or at the address checked above.

I appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht92-8.28

DATE: March 11, 1992

FROM: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Frank Rumpeltin; Rob Wise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark A. Sedlack (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a written clarification of an issue involving FMVSS 213 compliance testing. I have spoken to both Mike Pine and Dee Fujita about this issue and was told that a decision was pending.

It has been Century's understanding that any child restraint which was labeled for use by a child over 20 pounds would be tested using three year old part 572 dummy. The procedure is readily apparent in the standard for forward-facing child restraints. However, it is not readily apparent how a rear-facing seat could be tested using the three-year old dummy, particularly in how the dummy is to be installed.

As a result of recommendations published by various consumer safety groups, telling people to (ignore the manufacturer-a instructions and) use using rear-facing child restraints up to 25 pounds, we have tested our existing convertible seats with a CAMI dummy modified to twenty-five pounds with satisfactory results.

We have not, however, changed our labels or instructions to reflect the higher weight because of the above stated understanding.

Our next step is to test these seats with the three-year old dummy, but we are not clear, nor is the testing facility, as to how this procedure is to be accomplished.

We have recently become aware of a child restraint available at retail which is labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds, and must assume that the procedure for testing has been clarified. If this is the case, could you provide us with a written clarification as to how rear-facing testing is to be done for a child restraint labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds.

ID: nht92-8.29

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208; Std. 209

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S 571.208 and S 571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash Protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

First, we understand that the two-point automatic shoulder belt used in the above-mentioned system is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" as defined in FMVSS 209, S3. This understanding is based first on the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" in FMVSS 209, S3, which states that a "Type 2a shoulder belt" is "an upper torso restraint for use ONLY in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly." (emphasis added). Pursuant to the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt", the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt cannot be a "Type 2a shoulder belt" because (i) the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" states that the Type 2a shoulder belt is for use "only in conjunction" with the lap belt, while (ii) FMVSS 208, S.4.1.2.1 requires that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt must be used without the manual lap belt in order to comply with that option. Our understanding is based, second, on the fact that FMVSS intended that the Type 2a shoulder belt be used in conjunction with a Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 32 Fed. Reg. 3390 (1967). See also 49 C.F.R S 571.209, S3. NHTSA has consistently recognized the distinction between a Type 2 seat belt assembly (and therefore the Type 2a shoulder belt and Type 1 seat belt assembly combination which can make up that system) and automatic belts, holding that an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. See NHTSA interpretation letter to David E. Martin from Erika Z. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience). Therefore the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above cannot be a Type 2a

shoulder belt because a Type 2a shoulder belt is a component part of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, and an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. In fact, an automatic belt is not a term defined under FMVSS 209. Third, FMVSS 209, including the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt," generally does not apply to automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirement of FMVSS 208, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above. See NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). In general, a Type 2a shoulder belt is a shoulder belt that is detachable from a lap belt and when detached cannot function as a shoulder restraint, as does the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt. Therefore, please confirm that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt."

Second, we understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder-belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt. Our understanding is based upon three basis. First, the warning is not required to accompany the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt because the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" for the reasons discussed above. Second, the rational behind the FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) warning requirement does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized seat belt. A Type 2a shoulder belt unattached to a lap belt is dysfunctional, so FMVSS 209 required that the user be instructed to hook the shoulder belt to the lap belt. This rationale does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, as it is never hooked up to the lap belt, and does not need to be in order to function. Third, the language of FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4, as interpreted by the NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (Exhibit "B"), states that an automatic belt, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, which is certified as complying with the crash testing requirements of S5.1 (which, as we have stated, the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt does) is not required to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 209. In fact, FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4 as interpreted by the Pepe letter states that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to comply with any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1. Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt, and (ii) that the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

In summary, we ask that you please confirm that: (i) the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" (ii) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" and (iii) the two-

point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.

ID: nht92-8.3

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 27, 1992 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche") hereby submits the attached request for interpretation of FMVSS 108.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

ID: nht92-8.30

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

We understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt in the above-mentioned restraint system may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b), and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by that option. FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 states just that: "a seat belt assembly that requires no action by vehicle occupants . . . may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

The two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used as a "seat belt assembly" to comply with FMVSS 208 pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3. An automatic belt can be a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 without relying on webbing or a lap belt to provide pelvic restraint. This follows directly from the NHTSA interpretation letter to Rembert Ryals, Esq. from Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 10, 1990 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience), which states that automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208 generally are not required to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209, and that such an automatic belt is not required by FMVSS 208 or 209 to provide a lap belt, either manual or automatic. See also, the NHTSA interpretation letter to Mr. David E. Martin from Erika F. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). Specifically, the Ryals letter states that FMVSS 209, S4.1(b) does not apply to automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, because a two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is a "seat belt assembly" under FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 and because such a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt "requires no action by the vehicle occupants," a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt can be used, pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3, to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsection

(a), (b) and (c) (2)) and in place of any other seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option, and need not contain any lap belt.

Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt may be used alone (without the manual lap belt) to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1, specifically pursuant to FMVSS 208, S4.5.3 as a "seat belt assembly" to meet the crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 (specifically through subsections (a), (b) and (c)(2)) and in place of any seat belt assembly required by FMVSS 208, S4.1.2.1 and (ii) the definition of "seat belt assembly" in FMVSS 209, S3 does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.