ID: 86-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 31, 1986 Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff Special Projects Director Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Road Wichita, Kansas 67209 Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on several components you wish to install in the interior of a passenger car. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you are installing the components described in your letter in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since you are modifying the interior of the passenger car, you must ensure that the vehicle will still comply with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed. If you are making these alterations to a used vehicle, then you, as a commercial business, would be covered by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with Federal safety standards. Thus, in installing the components you described, you cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201 or any of our other standards. The potential effect of Standard No. 201 on each of the components you asked about is discussed below. Front and rear cooler consoles. S3.1 of the standard sets performance requirements for the instrument panel. S3.1.1(a) of the standard specifically provides that the instrument panel requirements do not apply to console assemblies. We would consider both the front and rear seat coolers to be console assemblies and thus exempt from the requirements of S3.1. S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in an instrument panel, a console assembly, a seat back, or a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The doors in the front and rear consoles would have to meet this requirement. Seat back fold-down tables. S3.2 of the standard sets performance requirements to limit injuries caused when rear seat occupants strike the seat backs in front of them. You would have to ensure that the seat backs would still comply with S3.2 when the fold-down tables are installed. The fold-down tables mounted in the seat back and the door do not have to meet the requirement in S3.3 for interior compartment doors. However, since both those items are hinged surfaces which could fly open in a crash and pose a hazard to an occupant in a crash, we urge you to ensure that the tables will be adequately secured in a crash. S3.5 of the standard sets requirements for armrests. You would have to ensure that the vehicle will still comply with S3.5 when the fold-down table is installed in the door. TV/VCR Cabinet There are no requirements that apply to the TV/VCR cabinet. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5411

"Dear Mr. Stewart: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, askin whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can 'be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217,' Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms). During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus. Non-School Bus The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non-school buses to have 'unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus.' That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each exit to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches. School Bus The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states '(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.' All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emergency exits are required, the area of 'daylight opening' of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required. The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the 'size of the available front service door opening' (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the 'daylight opening' of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front service door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door. If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order: 1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window), 2) emergency roof exit, 3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits. Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5033

Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992 concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of 'seat belt anchorage.' That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of 'seat belt anchorage,' to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below. The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor. l. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool? The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment' be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should 'duplicate the geometry' of the original webbing. The amended definition of 'seat belt anchorage' explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is any 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. If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance. 2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool? As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment' for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing. 3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209. The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is 'involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure') caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure. 4. A commonly used design is the 'cable buckle'. The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210, separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210. In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that 'the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself.' For this design, the cable is a 'similar device' to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable. 5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly. The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210. 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. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 2835o

Mr. L. T. Mitchell
Specification Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, L.P.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is a response to your letter asking whether it is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no.

You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus "for passenger comfort reasons." Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle safety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading.

You reason that because the term "designated seating position" is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Standard 217 and the definition of "designated seating position" in 571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which this reasoning might be applied.

Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter:

Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size making three passengers on one 39" seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39" seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses; by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that specify differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry "primary, preprimary, or secondary school students" to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term "school bus" must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small children to kindergarten or teenagers to high school.

Third, the definition of "designated seating position" and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat in inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term "W") is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222.

For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therefore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to install only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222.

For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your "Situation 2" is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:57l#217#222 d:3/2/88

ID: nht74-2.31

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of December 6, 1973, in response to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on February 25, 1974. You indicated then that our reply of February 6, 1974, failed to define "lowest seating position" as that term is used with respect to motorcycles in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2).

We interpret the phrase "lowest seating position" to mean the lowest point on the uncompressed seating surface of the motorcycle operator's seat.

I regret that our earlier letter omitted this information.

ID: 77-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's February 8, 1977, petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" and to add a new definition to 49 CFR Part 571.3 for "special purpose vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition requests an amendment of the term "unloaded vehicle weight" similar to that proposed by Chrysler's December 20, 1976, petition. Both petitions recommend that, for purposes of barrier crash testing of certain vehicles, the unloaded vehicle weight be the lesser of the weight of a completed comparable model vehicle from which the particular vehicle is derived or 5,500 pounds. Further, you request an additional definition of "special purpose vehicle" that would distinguish vehicles designed for a specific work function from other vehicles produced from the same chassis. We have determined that the effect of creating such a vehicle category as special purpose vehicle in conjunction with the establishment of arbitrary weights for vehicles when undergoing compliance testing would, in some situations, undermine the effectiveness of the motor vehicle safety standards. Vehicles falling into the category could, according to your suggested scheme, be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight as equipped.

In the case of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, such a result would possibly violate Congress order in the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) that the NHTSA not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard.

To allow certain vehicles to be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight, would permit the operation of vehicles which, as equipped, could fail the requirements of the standard.

You should note that the agency intends to proceed with the rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" as recommended in a petition from Chrysler dated November 20, 1976. This amendment will incorporate changes in the definition previously made by the NHTSA through interpretation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

February 8, 1977

Petition to Define "Special Purpose Vehicle" and Amend the Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) on behalf of nearly one thousand final and intermediate manufacturers of trucks, truck bodies and allied truck equipment wishes to petition the NHTSA to add the definition of "Special Purpose Vehicles" and to amend the definition "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" to Part 571 -- Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The existing term "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" (U.V.W.) is used in several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to establish the weight (mass) of a vehicle to be barrier crash tested.

In the past, barrier crashes were only specified for passenger cars, but with the (Illegible Word) of FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity, barrier testing was extended to include trucks of up to 10,000 pounds GVWR.

The majority of the vehicles produced by our industry now are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 301 including the requirement to be able to survive a 30 mph head on barrier crash without spillage of a significant amount of fuel.

This crash test alone has necessitated the review and often total redesign of the specialized equipment produced by our industry, i.e. ambulances, dump trucks, farm trucks, utility trucks and tow trucks.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry does not object to the intent of a fuel system performance standard but we do object to the manner in which any FMVSS requiring crash test is applied to the many final stage manufacturers of multistage manufactured vehicle.

It is apparent that the latest series of FMVSS will be much more complex than those initially issued. Even though truck production will be regulated by these standards it appears that the present definitions are directed to the passenger cars and pickup trucks but not to multistage manufactured vehicles. Our objection to the present test requirements is based on the fact that the NHTSA views both the manufacturer of an automobile and the manufacturer of a tow truck as final stage manufacturers.

By definition a "Final Stage Manufacturer" is "any person who performs such manufacturing on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle".

In the truck manufacturing industry, this procedure is commonly referred to as taking a chassis (an incomplete vehicle) and making it "road ready". The process by which an incomplete vehicle is made "road ready" may vary from mounting a farm (Illegible Words) lights, to modifying a chassis cab into a complex piece of fire fighting equipments.

The network of truck manufacturers is immense, beginning with a handful of chassis manufacturers and extending outwards through thousands of final manufacturers. The most common type of final manufacturer is the truck body and equipment distributor. A distributor takes a chassis cab and installs a body or a piece of equipment on it and certifies that this completed vehicle complies with all existing federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of manufacture. These small businesses (averaging less than 24 employees) are not in a position to do extensive engineering studies on each of their various types of vehicles. In order to comply with the numerous stands relating to their product, they rely heavily on support data from the chassis manufacturers. This component certification insures the distributor that when assembled the completed vehicle will comply with all applicable standards.

The back bone of the completed vehicle is the truck chassis. It is through this component, that the final manufacturer complies with many of the FMVSS. The chassis itself is extremely flexible allowing hundreds of body and equipment combinations to be installed on a single chassis type.

The light duty truck chassis, under 10,000 pounds GVWR, is an off shoot from the mass produced pick-up truck. Less than one in ten light trucks is scheduled for production as a truck chassis or incomplete vehicle. These low production numbers do not justify individual testing of each vocational type of truck produced, thus all available certification data is based on the pick-up truck. This is the point at which the (Illegible Word) "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" impedes our certification program.

The NHTSA defines "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as:

The weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

This term therefore results in low test weights based on the light pick-up body weight. As an example, a typical well equipped pick-up chassis with a 10,000 pound GVWR may weigh 4,400 pounds and its body may weigh 500 pounds for a total unloaded vehicle weight of 4,900 pounds. The truck chassis manufacturer would most likely test this vehicle at 5,000 pounds to insure S301 compliance.

Although the pick-up truck in this example is equipped with a vocational body designed to transport a cargo, many of the special purpose vehicles manufactured by our industry are designed to transport a piece of equipment such as an ambulance, a cherry picker, or a wrecker. These special purpose vehicles have a much higher unloaded vehicle weight. An example of one of our special purpose vehicles would be a utility vehicle equipped with a cherry picker or manlift. The same 10,000 pound GVWR chassis used for the pick-up at 4,000 pounds would be completed with an 1,900 pound utility body and a 2,500 pound aerial device for a total UVW of 8,800 pounds.

The higher UW causes a potential problem when considering any type of barrier (Illegible Word) test. When any vehicle is impacted into a stationary barrier, the vehicles entire energy or motion must be disipated through structural deformation, or crash.

The amount of crush realized during a barrier crash is proportional to the vehicles weight (mass) therefore two identical chassis with bodies of different weight, will receive different amounts of crush, the heavier the vehicle the more the crash. With the increase of crush, the chance of (Illegible Word) or separating some parts of the fuel system also increases. At some increases test weight, compliance with the barrier test requirements becomes questionable. This break point falls somewhere between 1.500 and 8.500 pounds for the present generation of pick-up chassis. In other words a chassis loaded to 7.000 pounds and crashed into a wall at 30 mph will most likely pass a 301 test where as a chassis loaded to 9.000 pounds won't.

Again, our objection to the barrier test is not with the intent, but with the procedure. In the real world condition, the pick-up truck loaded with a cargo of 3.900 pounds will react in the same manner as a utility vehicle when subjected to an actual accident.

Several years ago, the chassis manufacturers successfully demonstrated to NHTSA that carrier crashing of pick-up type vehicles at their GVWR's was questionable if not impossible. By the use of the present UVW definition, the NHTSA is requiring the many small final manufacturers within our industry, to assume the responsibility for certifying a completed vehicle to a performance level already questioned by the Agency and the chassis manufacturers.

At present, our only solution to the crash problem is to go to a larger chassis, above the 10.000 GVWR limit. This next step in chassis size may mean an increase of several thousand dollars per vehicle, not including the 10% Federal Excise Tax that then becomes effective.

We are concerned that in order to legally produce a vehicle with the same inherent safety qualities as a loaded pick-up, we are forced to purchase a larger chassis. pay 10% FET on the entire unit and still end up with a pre 301 vehicle. Why should a utility company be forced to purchase a $ 20,000 aerial device when the same piece of equipment could be produced for $ 15,000?

In an effort to alleviate this inequity place on our industry, we request that the Agency barrier test vehicles for standard compliance with weights more closely allied to the basic pick-up trucks.

This change could be accomplished by adopting a new definition for "Special Purpose Vehicles" and adopting Chryslers proposed definition for "Unloaded Vehicle Weight".

Special Purpose Vehicle -- means a motor vehicle of less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, designed to perform a specific work function, manufactured in two or more stages, and whose incomplete vehicle portion is derived from a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Unloaded Vehicle Weight -- means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry has always demonstrated concern when considering the design and production of road safe vehicles.

The adoption of this amended definition would allow the many conscientious final manufacturers of trucks and related truck equipment to utilize test data already available through the chassis manufacturer.

It is also our contention that the adoption of this amended definition will pose no diminished level of motor vehicle safety.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: aiam1879

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1975, asking whether consistently with Federal law, the New York Commissioner of Transportation may waive a safety rule which is based on a Federal safety regulation. You indicate that New York has rules which permit waivers of New York requirements. The case in point involves a waiver given to a bus owner who, because his vehicle was to be used only in the transportation of nursery school children, requested that the allowable occupant weight be set at 100 pounds rather than 120 pounds. The waiver was provided by giving the owner-operator of the vehicle a valid certificate of inspection.; The facts of the case, particularly how the vehicle in question i equipped and labeled, are not altogether clear from what you have told us. It appears that the manufacturer of the bus has labeled it with a gross vehicle weight rating that, contrary to the Federal certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567(g)(3)), does not equal the unloaded vehicle weight plus 120 pounds times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.; It appears from your correspondence that the certificate of inspectio issued by the New York authorities fulfills purposes that differ from those of the Federal certification regulations. There is no Federal requirement that the State inspection rules incorporate the Federal requirements, as long as they do not conflict with the Federal safety standards or associated regulations. However, if the manufacturer has violated the Federal law, he is subject to its sanctions, and nothing the State can do would 'forgive' the violation. If our assumptions concerning the facts of the case are correct, the State is free to deal as it sees fit with the fact that the bus does not conform to the Federal regulations.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: 24095_Sobler_vests_above_50lbs

Nathan Sobler, GM
NFC Industries, Inc.
Potters Lane North
Plumsteadville, PA 18949

Dear Mr. Sobler:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213), as applied to restraint vests used on school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Question 1. It is our understanding that a requirement of Standard No. 213 is that the device not be designed to have any means of being attached to the seat back or cushion. Is it true, then, that any restraint system that attaches to the seat back or cushion of a school bus seat would automatically fail to comply with Standard No. 213?

We believe you are asking about statements made in an August 31, 2001, letter to Ms. Kathy Durkin about a passenger support vest manufactured for use on school buses (copy enclosed). In that letter, the agency discussed a requirement in Standard No. 213 (S5.3.1 of the standard) that had prohibited child restraints from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back (excluding components designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, 49 CFR 571.225). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had adopted the prohibition against attaching child restraints to vehicle seat backs because the agency was concerned that a vehicle seat back might not be able to withstand the additional load on it from an attached child seat in a crash.

NHTSA has recently amended S5.3.1 of Standard No. 213 on an interim basis to exclude all vests manufactured for use on school bus seats from the prohibition (see enclosed Interim Final Rule, Request For Comments; October 22, 2002, 67 FR 64818). On February 1, 2003, the exclusion becomes limited to vests that bear a specific warning label informing users that the vest must be used only on school bus seats and that the seats directly behind the child wearing the seat-mounted vest must be either unoccupied or occupied by restrained passengers.The exclusion will terminate on December 1, 2003. After reviewing the public comments on the interim final rule, NHTSA will decide whether to issue a final rule excluding these vests from the prohibition on a permanent basis.

In the meantime, if you have a question about the attachment mechanism of a specific restraint, please feel free to ask for an interpretation of the requirement as applied to that specific design.

Question 2. A large number of the restraint vests used in the school transportation industry are used for children much heavier than fifty pounds. In many cases they are used on children with mental or physical conditions which require some form of physical restraint to protect themselves and others. [T]he restraint systems we manufacture are all labeled with advisories that they are not intended to be used as, or in place of, seat belts. If the restraint is designed and used for children weighing over fifty pounds, regardless of their weight, does Standard No. 213 apply? If not, is there any standard which would govern the use of restraint systems for children exceeding a weight of fifty pounds?

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the restraint were designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, the restraint would be excluded from the standard. If the restraint were designated as suitable for children weighing less than 50 pounds in addition to over 50 pounds, the restraint would not be excluded from having to comply with Standard No. 213.

The agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (copy enclosed) proposing, among other things, to amend the definition of a child restraint system to include devices designed for children who weigh not more than 65 pounds (67 FR 21805; May 1, 2002). If the proposal were adopted, restraint vests recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds would be subject to Standard No. 213.

With regard to the second part of this question, Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" (49 CFR 571.209), would apply to a restraint for children weighing over 50 pounds, if the restraint were intended to secure children for crash protection. The standard defines "seat belt assembly" as "any 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) This standard would apply if the restraint were intended to mitigate the results of an accident. The standard would not apply to restraints recommended for children over 50 pounds that are clearly and permanently labeled with a warning that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of a crash. [1]

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.11/15/02





---




[1] Vest restraints recommended for use by children weighing 50 pounds or less are subject to Standard No. 213, regardless of whether the restraint were "designedto mitigate the results of any accident." In other words, all devices designed to restrain children weighing 50 pounds or less in a motor vehicle are subject to Standard No. 213; the standard is not limited solely to devices designed to mitigate the results of a crash.

ID: 3242yy

Ms. Sandra Mesh-Witucki
McGraw, Borchard & Martin
5200 State Street
Saginaw, Michigan 48603

Dear Ms. Mesh-Witucki:

This responds to your November 1, 1991 letter in which you asked for "a certified copy of all rules/standards applicable to (a 1987 Chevrolet Cargo Van Conversion) both before and after conversion, and any other information you feel may be of assistance." Your letter mentioned that you are interested in this information for pending litigation concerning an accident in which this vehicle was involved in which, "(a)llegedly, a rear seat passenger suffered a spinal fracture from the lap belt." In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff on November 26, 1991, you verified that you are specifically interested in regulations concerning the type of safety belts this vehicle was required to have. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

Standard No. 208 and all the rest of NHTSA's safety standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. This and all other volumes of the CFR may be purchased by contacting:

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238

Because the CFR is published by the Government Printing Office, that office is the only source for certified copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:l2/l0/9l

ID: 21345.drn

Interpretation of Emergency Exits on
Double Decker Buses (Std. No. 217)
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance

This responds to Mr. James Jones' request for an interpretation of the required emergency exit area in a double decker bus, as specified in Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. The buses at issue are over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), and designed to seat 18 persons in the bottom tier (which is enclosed) and 32 persons in the top tier, which is open (i.e., has no roof, windows, or doors). In calculating the required exit area for each bus, NSA asks whether the calculation is "432 square centimeters x 50" (all the designated seating positions in the bus) or "432 square centimeters x 18" (only the designated seating positions in the bottom, enclosed tier of the bus). As explained below, the correct calculation is "432 square centimeters x 18."

It is my understanding that the buses at issue were not manufactured for sale in the US and information must be provided on how the buses can be modified to meet applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 217. The buses come in two models. The older model has a rear view window in the enclosed lower tier and the newer model is completely enclosed in the back in the lower tier. Mr. Luke Loy of your office has provided us with photographs with a view of each bus model from the front and from the back.

Standard No. 217 applies to "buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint." (See S3.) Among other purposes, Standard No. 217 is intended to "provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress." (See S2.) Standard No. 217 at S5.2.2.1 (provision of emergency exits for buses other than school buses) states in part: "Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus."

For purposes of this interpretation, it will be assumed that the double decker bus manufacturer has certified each vehicle as a "bus." I have carefully reviewed the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217. Nowhere (in any of the preambles or regulatory texts) is the applicability of S5.2.2.1 (or any other Standard No. 217 provision) to double decker buses discussed. I therefore determine that Standard No. 217 was written to address emergency escape from the enclosed areas of buses. Applying this principle to the double decker bus with the open top tier, the required exit area would be calculated by multiplying 432 square centimeters x 18 positions. The 18 positions represent the number of designated seating positions in the bottom, enclosed area of the bus.

Please note that this interpretation reflects consideration of the purposes underlying Standard No. 217 generally, and S5.2.2.1 in particular. Standard No. 217 was promulgated to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress from a bus. In order to accomplish this, the Standard at S5.2.2.1 specifies, in total square centimeters, the unobstructed openings for emergency exit that is based in part on the number of designated seating positions on the bus.

I also note that S5.2.2.2 (applicable to buses over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb)) states in part: "When the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus." Judging from the photographs, the configuration of each double decker bus model may "preclude[s] installation of an accessible rear exit." If so, installation of a roof exit may pose problems not seen on an enclosed bus. Since the bus is double decker, passengers on the top tier may be expected to walk on the roof exit. The roof exit on the double decker bus therefore may have to be strong enough to support more than one person walking on it. So that the roof exit is available for use in an emergency, means should be provided to ensure that no seating position is on or above it.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at 6-2992.

ref:217
d.4/6/2000