ID: nht94-1.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela R. Caron (Meridian, MS)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/93 from Angela R. Caron to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9119)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children an d small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on s uch products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, ou r safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations app ly to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, ther e have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those busi nesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which incr ease the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The ma nufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests prod ucts for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the c hild restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Gary Klingaman (A42; Redbook (2); PART 567)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We are a manufacturer of water trucks and lube/fuel service trucks. We take incomplete vehicles and add water tanks and various other apparatus, making it a complete vehicle.

By Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we are required to identify this vehicle by a sticker indicating manufacturer, incomplete vehicle manufacturer, date of manufacturer, GVWR with indicated tires, tire pressure, and vehicle identification number.

We also may use pre-owned chassis in construction of our product. Do we need this sticker for this type of vehicle?

I would appreciate any further information on this tag that is required and if it is required on used chassis belonging to either the customer or one we have purchased to sell.

Regards,

INTER PIPE, INC.

ID: nht94-1.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Andrew Tweddle -- AV Technology Corp. (Troy, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/8/93 from Andrew Tweddle to Walter K. Myers (OCC 9352)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether AV Technology's armored vehicle is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). As explained below, a vehicle manufactured to U.S. Army contract specifications, and sold to t he Army, is not subject to the FMVSS.

In your letter, you explained that AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable m ilitary specifications.

The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c):

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs.

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

ID: nht94-1.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- S.R. Taylor Toys (Porterville, CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 11/10/93 from Steven R. Taylor to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX to Mary Versailles of this office asking whether your Original Designer Seatbelt Strap (ODSS) would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. Also referenced are your telephone con versations with Mary Versailles and Walter Myers. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You described the ODSS as a strip of "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing" with double-sided adhesive tape on the under side and silk-screened designs on the front side. The tape has a backing that peels off, exposing the adhesive, and the ODSS is t hen applied to the existing seat belt. The ODSS comes in both child and adult models. The child's model, which is intended to be applied to the belt portion of a child restraint system, is 15 inches long and 1 1/2 inches wide with cartoon characters si lk-screened on its face to entertain the child. The adult model, which is intended to be applied to a vehicle safety belt, is 30 inches long and 2 inches wide with silk-screened designs on its face to serve as a reminder to buckle up. The promotional m aterial you sent with your inquiry indicated that the ODSS is an aftermarket product that "serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Neither the Department of Tra nsportation (DOT) nor NHTSA approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product.

I note that you do not explain what you mean by the term "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing." This agency does not use that term. We assume you mean that the webbing is the same as that used by vehicle manufacturers for the safety belts used to c omply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misunderstood as an approval by DOT of the webbing, we ask that you refrain from using the term in your promotional materials.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A)ny system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We de termine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is i ntended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. if the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the ODSS, this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, the entire portion of the expected use of the ODSS relates to motor vehi cle operation. Also, the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicle.

While the ODSS is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety relate d defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts or child restraint systems. For example, you should ensure that your product does not interfere with safety belt retraction, that the adhesive on the back of the ODSS does not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that the ODSS does not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to be labeled on the webbing. I also note that safety belt web bing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If the ODSS was to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302 , Flammability of Interior Materials. Again, we encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether the ODSS would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts.

A commercial business that installs the ODSS system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles/motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provide s that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the ODSS renders inoperative the vehicle's or child restraint system's compliance with the FMVSS's. The render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that owners make to their own vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicle or equipment. In addition, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles or equipment, so you might wish to consult state regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. D uring air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, the n the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified unde r our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers fo r the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facin g seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subj ect to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trail er portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1 , 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that a re appropriate to a safe design.

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: nht94-1.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro- reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.

ID: nht94-1.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/94 from D. E. Hawkins to John G. Womack (OCC-9540)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bag s or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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: nht94-1.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/93 from Lawrence P. White to Mary Versie (OCC-9479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufa ctured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two date s." (49 CFR Part S568.6).

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push-out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window).

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side

emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be co nsidered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the requi red 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch me chanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the notion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school bus es with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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

ID: nht94-1.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This al so responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, 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. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial produc ts. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth r estraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CF R S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and locatio n requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible f or certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a v ehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint system s meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems co uld be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "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."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, suc h installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil pen alty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encou rages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: nht94-1.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation; Reference: 1. 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 88- 21; Notice No. 3 Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (new); 2. 49 CFR Part 571 - Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 5 Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (new); 3. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release (curren t)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

ITEM 1:

The final rule of reference 1 in section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires "A side door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) shall be located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." The supplementar y information section number 6 discusses location of emergency exits, acknowledges variables that can effect the location of doors in particular, and concludes that the states are in the best position to specify the exact locations of emergency exits on school buses. It was then stated that "The final rule, therefore, establishes general requirements for school bus emergency exit locations."

Since the majority of state school bus specifications do not address side emergency exit door locations and since those states that have in the past addressed side emergency exit door locations have not updated their specifications to accommodate the new exit requirements of the final rule and because school buses are currently being ordered and scheduled for production pursuant to the new exit requirements, the burden of selecting specific side emergency exit door locations for most new school buses fa lls on the school bus manufacturer.

Also, since there are many variables that could influence what is "as near as practicable," such as wheelhousing, fuel filler necks, seat placement, etc. Blue Bird must establish allowable limits for locating side emergency exit doors installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i). For the above reasons, we have chosen to establish limits such that the 12-inch required opening for the left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) will always be in the center one-half of the passenger compartment as defined in the final rule. (1) BLUE BIRD REQUESTS CONFIRMATION THAT LOCATING LEFT SIDE EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR AS JUST DESCRIBED MEETS BOTH THE LETTER AND INTENT OF SECTION S5.2.3.2(A)(2) REQUIREMENTS. Since NHTSA chose not to establish more specific f ore and aft location requirements for the side door in question and chose not to establish fore and aft location requirements for any additional side doors required by the Standard, we believe it is reasonable to request such flexibility in the location of the side emergency exit door required by S.5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i).

ITEM 2:

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217 prior to the final rule of reference 1 in subsection (b) required the left side emergency door for this option to be in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. We find that this requirement is not retained as part o f the standard in the final rule.

Also, upon careful review of the new standard, we have concluded that other than the requirement of S5.2.3.2(a)(2) for side emergency exit doors installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), there are no other fore and aft location requirement for any school bus side emergency exit doors. (2) WE SEEK YOUR CONFIRMATION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CORRECT.

ITEM 3:

There was an interpretation issued by OCC on March 9, 1977 with regard to FMVSS 217 requirements for school buses of reference 3. A copy of the interpretation is enclosed. The interpretation dealt with the requirement for side emergency exit doors that were voluntarily installed per state or customer specifications and were not required by FMVSS 217. The interpretation stated "Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergenc y exits in buses other than school buses." In layman's terms, the interpretation meant that side emergency exit doors that were installed in school buses voluntarily need not meet the seat placement requirement of S5.4.2.1(b) .. "A vertical transverse pl ane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency exit door" and that they were instead treated like pushout windows.

Sections S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)iii) of the final rule of reference 1 and figures 5A, 5B and 5C of the technical amendment of reference 2, establish new seat and restraining barrier positioning requirements with respect to side emergenc y exit doors. Blue Bird has concluded that the March 9, 1977 interpretation does not apply to these new requirements as it did to the 1977 FMVSS 217 requirements, and that all side emergency exit doors in new school buses are now required to meet the ne w positioning requirements pursuant to the final rules of reference 1 and reference 2. (3) WE SEEK YOUR CONFIRMATION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CORRECT.

Since the new requirements of FMVSS 217 are effective May 2, 1997 and school buses are currently being ordered that will have to meet these new requirements, a timely response to the above three items is needed.