ID: nht72-6.37

DATE: 01/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1971, requesting our concurrence on three opinions you have furnished to the Recreational Vehicle Institute concerning the application of Part 567, "Certification," and Part 568. "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages, to certain recreational vehicles. The opinions, each the subject of a separate letter from you to Mr. Phillip H. Sharke or PVI, are discussed separately below:

1. Your first letter, dated November 18, 1971, concerns the possibility that travel trailers may be "vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and subject to Part 560 and the appropriate sections of Part 367. if an "assemblage" is purchased from a supplier for completion, as opposed to when only individual component parts are purchased. This interpretation is correct. Travel trailers, like other vehicles, would be vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, if an assemblage consisting of at least the components specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" (@ 566.3) in delivered to another person for completion. In addition, each of the first three "consequences" listed on pages 2 and 3 of your letter are essentially correct. With respect to consequence number 4, the party against whom the NHTSA would proceed should a defect be discovered in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages would depend upon which manufacturer was responsible for the defect. In most situations, however, it is the final-stage manufacturer who would be contacted first, as this would be necessary to determine whether the defect resulted from his activities or the activities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

2. Your second letter, dated November 22, 1971, takes the position that Part 568 applies to the situation where a completed panel or automobile type truck is modified into a motor home. This analysis is incorrect. The definition of incomplete vehicle is Part 568 (#568.3) specifies that such a vehicle "requires further manufacturing . . . to become a completed vehicle." This is not the same as modifying one completed vehicle into another, the case you describe. In such a situation the issue is only whether sufficient modifications are made to the original truck to consider the one who modifies it a manufacturer in his own right. As the type of vehicle is being changed, as you state, from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case, the manufacturer of the motor home bears full responsibility for compliance with all applicable standards, and stands in the same relationship to the truck manufacturer as all vehicle manufactures stand to their suppliers when components that must meet standards are involved. The burden would be on the modifying manufacturer to show that his modification did not affect the base vehicle's compliance with a standard, if a nonconformity were discovered. The same reasoning would apply in determining responsibility for safety related defects.

3. Your third letter of November 29, 1971, discusses two issues. The first is whether GVWR for trailers should include weight specified for each designated seating position. Based on the definitions of "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3 you conclude that as state laws generally provide that for each designated seating position. You amplify this with regard to fifth wheel trailers, stating that if any state allows persons to ride in such trailers, then the appropriate weight for each designated seating position should be included.

Whether or not a trailer has "designated seating position" depends upon the manufacturer's intention in designing the trailer. If a manufacturer does not include designated seating positions, whether or not due to state law, then such weights need not be included in the gross vehicle weight rating.

Your second question is whether the hitch or (Illegible Word) weight is to be included in establishing GVWS. This question was answered in our letter of January 4, 1972.

Finally, with reference to inclusion of specific fluid in determining various weights, those fluids such as water, etc., used in recreational vehicles for purposes other than vehicle operation are considered to be cargo.

ID: nht79-4.3

DATE: 08/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Webster & Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as applicable to vehicles sold to the U.S. Postal Service.

Under the general requirements of paragraph S4.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Type II seat belt assemblies are required for outboard designated seating positions. That paragraph does provide optional requirements, however, for certain vehicles that are designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service. Under the optional requirements, these vehicles can instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 which allow the use of Type I seat belts at outboard designated seating positions in convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles and for outboard seating positions that do not include the windshield header in the head impact area. Therefore, if the "X-1" vehicles described in your letter are any of these vehicle types and are sold exclusively to the Postal Service, they may legally be equipped with either Type I or Type II assemblies, at the manufacturer's option.

Regarding your second question, whether or not the "X-1" vehicles conform to Postal Service specifications is a matter of contractual agreement that must be determined by the contracting parties. The most the agency can say is that the "X-1" vehicles would be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 208 if they qualify as one of the vehicle types discussed above.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

SINCERELY,

August 2, 1979

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We would like to respectfully request a ruling from your office concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 S4.2.2, 49 CFR @ 571.208 S4.2.2, to the fact situation set forth below. Since clarification of this issue is necessary to enable the affected parties to submit accurate bids for a government contract by mid-August, we would greatly appreciate a response from your office at the earliest possible time.

The specific fact situation with respect to which this ruling is requested is as follows: Corporation A enters into a contract with the Federal government to sell to the United States Postal Service certain vehicles meeting the specifications set forth by the Postal Service in its request for bids. The Postal Service specifications state, in relevant part, that, "The restraint system hardware, mounting, and performance shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210, . . ." All vehicles sold to the Postal Service by Corporation A (hereinafter referred to as "type X-1" vehicles) have "Type 1" seat belt assemblies in conformance with the requirements of Standard 208 S4.2.1.2. Corporation A sells type X-1 vehicles exclusively to the Postal Service.

Corporation A also manufactures "type X-2" vehicles, which are identical to type X-1 vehicles, with one exception: all type X-2 vehicles have seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3. Corporation A sells type X-2 vehicles to various public and private purchasers.

The questions with respect to which a ruling is hereby requested are the following:

1. In the fact situation presented above, are all type X-1 vehicles manufactured by Corporation A and actually sold to the Postal Service "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the U.S. Postal Service" within the meaning of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not require such type X-1 vehicles to be retrofitted with seat belt assemblies which meet the requirements of Standard 208 S4.1.2.1, Standard 208 S4.1.2.2, or Standard 208 S4.1.2.3?

2. Assuming that the "Type 1" seat belt assemblies installed in all type X-1 vehicles conform to Standard 209 and Standard 210, do all type X-1 vehicles sold to the Postal Service conform to Standard 208 by virtue of the provisions of Standard 208 S4.2.2, so that all type X-1 vehicles would be in compliance with the requirement of the Postal Service specification that the seat belt assembly "shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208, 209 and 210?

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Charles E. Chamberlain

ID: aiam3853

Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your recent correspondence concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. Your correspondence comprised two letters to this office. In your first letter, you asked two questions regarding the labeling requirements for emergency exits. Your second letter inquired into the provision of push-out windows in buses other than school buses.; Your first question concerns the labeling of emergency exits i non-school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Section 5.5.1 of the Standard requires labels for all emergency exits except for doors and roll-down windows.; The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially-installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 217 permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with a vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll- down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. On the other hand, Section 5.5.1 provides that specially- installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.; Your second question asked: >>>Would there be any labeling requirements for push-out windows, on school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, if installed in addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.1 since these push-out windows are not required by this section?<<<; The answer to your question depends on whether the additional window are designed or constructed as emergency exits. Standard No. 217 does not require that every exit installed in a school bus beyond those required by S5.2.3.1 must comply with the requirements applicable to school bus exits. On the other hand, additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses if the exit is intended as an emergency exit. These additional exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of the standard.; In your second letter to this agency you described a situation wher school bus contractors utilize school buses as general transit vehicles on charter trips when the buses are not in use for school purposes. You asked, 'Are these buses required to have push-out windows as mandated for non-school buses since they are manufactured and sold primarily as school buses?'; The answer to your question is no. The vehicles you described woul have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are sold as school buses. Thus, these vehicles would only be subject to the standards applicable to school buses. Further, even though these vehicles are not subject to the safety standards applicable to vehicles other than school buses, I would note that Standard No 217 does not mandate push-out windows to be used for emergency exits in non-school buses. The agency determined that devices such as panels and doors which meet the emergency exit requirements would be as effective as push-out windows for emergency egress. Sliding emergency exits must, of course, comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 217. They must be capable of complying with the standard when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. Also, while the standard permits devices other than push-out windows to be used for emergency exits, the agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits because they are less likely to 'bind up' during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 3238yy

Mr. Darrell E. Lischynski, P.Eng.
Project Manager, Energy and Processing
Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute
P.O. Box 1150
Humboldt, Saskatchewan S0K 2A0
Canada

Dear Mr. Lischynski:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1991 concerning Calmar Industries' Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks. As described by you, the "Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point." You asked which safety standards this kit must meet.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued one safety standard that applies to seats, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and the following safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that the kit uses the factory-installed safety belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard.

Since Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if the seat lift kit is installed in a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the vehicle with the lift kit installed must conform to these standards.

After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed the lift kit would need to ensure, by carefully comparing the lift kit and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 d:l2/4/9l

ID: nht91-7.30

DATE: December 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Darrell E. Lischynski -- P.Eng., Project Manager, Energy and Processing, Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-3-91 from Darrell E. Lischynski to Mary Versailles (OCC 6562)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1991 concerning Calmar Industries' Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks. As described by you, the "Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point." You asked which safety standards this kit must meet.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued one safety standard that applies to seats, Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, and the following safety standards that apply to; safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that the kit uses the factory-installed safety belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard.

Since Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if the seat lift kit is installed in a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the vehicle with the lift kit installed must conform to these standards.

After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed the lift kit would need to ensure, by carefully comparing the lift kit and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of

up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

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

ID: 2669rbm

Mr. Charlie Steffens
Director, Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
Occupant Safety Systems
4505 W. 26 Mile Road
Washington, MI 48094

Dear Mr. Steffens:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your first question is related to the infant low risk deployment option while your three other questions are related to the interrelationship between the compliance options. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19 and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you characterize the requirements of S20.4 as follows. "For S20.4.9, if the subject vehicle were equipped with any type of occupant sensing system that was
(1) able to recognize that the passenger seat was occupied by any infant restraint from Appendices A, B, or C of the regulation,
(2) secured into the positions and orientations described in sections S20.4.1 through S20.4.8, and a 49 CFR Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy positioned according to S20.4 and
(3) the occupant sensing system and airbag control system were designed to control the output of the air bag system in a discrete manner, such as "low output", that the S20.4.9 testing would be conducted at the same discrete output determined by the occupant sensing system. Further, no additional tests to show compliance to S19, such as "high output" testing corresponding to that for a vehicle which does not have an occupant sensing system to meet S20.4.9 would be necessary."

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is placed very close to the air bag. The risk of being directly above or adjacent to the air bag is particularly high for infants because child restraints, when placed in their rear-facing mode, will always place an infant's head close to the dashboard. A poorly installed forward-facing child seat also creates a risk, because the restraint can slide or flip forward during a crash.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. Restraints listed in subpart A (car beds) need not be tested because these restraints are not designed to be rear facing. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. This represents the worst case injury scenario. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a child or test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat. [1]

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers that certify to the low risk deployment option will need to ensure that their sensing systems are sufficiently robust to detect the presence of an infant in any one of the child restraints listed in subparts B or C of Appendix A.

If only a "low output" air bag deploys in the indicant test, NHTSA will not deploy a "high output" air bag simply because the "high output" air bag is placed in the vehicle for other occupants who may be seated in the passenger seat. Such an approach would have the effect of preventing vehicle manufacturers from using sensing technology to identify the presence of an infant at higher speeds.

Your next two questions relate to how the different compliance options relate to one another. Specifically, you ask if "the intent of the regulation... mean[s] that at compliance strategy needs to be chosen for each occupant size [i.e., the 1-year-old, the 3-yer-old, and the 6-year-old], but that a different strategy can be employed for each." You then ask if it is "possible to comply with ... the regulation using multiple compliance methods within an occupant size grouping using a logical subgrouping. For instance, could a system use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in child restraints?"

A vehicle manufacturer must certify to one of the compliance options in S19, S21, and S23. You first ask whether a different compliance option may be used for each group of children addressed by the regulation. The answer is yes. Each set of compliance options specified for a particular group of children is unique to that group. Accordingly, a manufacturer could choose to use automatic suppression to meet the infant and three year old requirements, but low risk deployment or dynamic automatic suppression for the six year old requirements. [2] However, within a given age group, a manufacturer may not choose to certify some portion of the population to one option and another portion of the population to another option. This would result in a unique compliance option that may fail to address all conditions contemplated by each option. For example, it is not acceptable to claim certification by meeting only one of the two low risk deployment positions for the three year old and 50 percent of the suppression positions. A system needs to meet one of the two options in its entirety. A customized compliance option, where the manufacturer used part of different options, but not all of any option, would create a unique compliance scheme that was never contemplated by the agency in determining how best to meet the need for safety without imposing unreasonable constraints on vehicle manufacturers. We note that in the example you provided in your letter, whereby a manufacturer would "use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in restraints" would be a compliant system that could be fully certified to the low risk deployment option, but not to the suppression option. Nothing in the rule prohibits manufacturers from using such a design philosophy. The deployment strategies related to children restrained in child restraints would remain within the manufacturer's discretion.

Your final question asks whether a manufacturer could use both low risk deployment and automatic suppression systems as a system redundancy. You state: "Assume that a sensing system met all of the conditions... for the RFIS low risk requirement. Suppose the sensing system also had the further capability to classify and suppress for certain tested situations. The system would be certified to meet all the low risk deployment requirements, however under certain conditions the system would suppress the airbag instead of deploying at low level because of this redundant capability. TRW believes a system of this type would comply with FMVSS 208 based upon similar NHTSA interpretations using additional or redundant safety equipment."

Your understanding is correct. Manufacturers may choose to use multiple technologies to address real world risk, without certifying to more than one compliance option. NHTSA specifically addressed this possibility in the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30680, 30710). For example, a manufacturer may decide to use both low risk deployment and occupant sensing technologies for the six year old because it has concerns that the occupant sensing technology is insufficiently robust for all real world conditions, even though it may meet all the conditions specified in the test procedure. In such an instance, the manufacturer could certify to S23 using either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option, even though in actual driving conditions, the air bag may sometimes deploy when an occupant the size of a 6-year-old is seated in the passenger seat. However, the manufacturer must choose one of the options for certification. Once it decides which option to certify to, it cannot change its position, even though the vehicle may fully meet the requirements of the other options. See S4.8. We require manufacturers to choose a particular option so that we can conduct compliance testing in an effective and productive manner.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/8/03





---

[1] The preamble to the May 2000 final rule states that an indicant test is not required. The statement was made in response to a comment that an indicant test would be required for every child restraint on Appendix A. Multiple indicant tests are not required. It may also be possible that a manufacturer could otherwise ascertain that only a very benign air bag will deploy in the presence of a belted child restraint at any speed. However, NHTSA may choose to run an indicant test to verify that only a benign deployment was possible.

[2] Currently dynamic automatic suppression cannot be used to certify to the infant requirements.

ID: nht78-4.28

DATE: 05/11/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR. -- NHTSA

TO: JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO LT MITCHELL; REDBOOK A31, VSA 102, SEC 571; DEFINITION; STANDARD 208; 222; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217, SECTION 5.2. "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"; LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM L. T. MITCHELL TO ERIKA Z. JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS, OCC-945

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your March 10, 1978, letter asking whether you can consider a 39-inch bench-type seat in a bus as a two passenger seat when the bus is designed for adult transportation. You state in your letter that it would be possible for three 5th percentile females to sit in a seat of that width.

The establishment of designated seating positions in buses and other vehicles is done by the manufacturer of the vehicles. A manufacturer is accorded some discretion in making this determination; however, he is subject to certain limitations. For example, a manufacturer cannot understate the designated seating positions to such an extent that the vehicle is likely to carry more people than its stated capacity. In other words a manufacturer must make a good faith determination of the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles. Applying this test to a 39-inch bench seat used in buses transporting adults, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider it erroneous to consider these seats as two-passenger seats, because it would be extremely uncomfortable if not impossible to seat 3 adults in those seats.

ID: nht88-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: N. BOWYER -- SENIOR ENGINEER HOMOLOGATION AND LEGISLATION LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909; LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC-1908

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 199 1. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that t he labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that al so comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This secti on contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicl e. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehic le combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of S tandard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898 , at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for t hese dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those bel t systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly

true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which i t would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of St andard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

ID: 3082o

Mr. N. Bowyer AIR MAIL
Senior Engineer
Homologation and Legislation
Land Rover UK Limited
Lode Lane, Solihull
West Midlands B92 8NW
England
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706

/ref:208#209 d:l0/l4/88

ID: aiam1216

Dear Mr. Hiramine: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning th meaning of the term 75 percent extension' as used in S5.2(j) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The 75 percent extension point used in S5.2(j) is intended to represen the belt's extension during its use in a vehicle. The measurement of extension is therefore begun with the webbing retracted as fully as the design of hardware and the size of the retractor permit. It may be that when the belt is retracted to this point a considerable amount of webbing remains outside the retractor, as shown in Figure 2 of your letter. The measurement of extension nonetheless begins at this point, so that 75 percent extension' is 75 percent of the incremental webbing length between this point and the point of fullest extension.; To refer to the figures accompanying your letter, the measuremen technique shown in Figure 2 is correct. That shown in Figure 1, which is based on 75 percent of the total length of the belt, is incorrect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel