ID: nht89-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/89

FROM: DIANA REGAN

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-14-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO DIANA L. D. REGAN; A35; STDS. 208; 209; 213

TEXT: This letter will serve as my request for an interpretation of a product with which I hope to greatly improve safety for children riding in automobiles equipped with Lap-Shoulder safety belts. Enclosed you will find a description of the product (protecte d by a sole licensing agreement under U.S. Patent 4,832,367) and its use.

It is understood that as a manufacturer of such an auto safety product there are certain responsibilities and standards which must be complied with. Because of its innovative nature, it is unclear where a product such as the one described in the enclosu re lies. Is it a seat belt or should it be considered as an infant car seat?

I respectfully request an interpretation of the product and my responsibilities as its manufacturer and seller. It is hoped the information enclosed is sufficient and I will be happy to provide anything further.

Thank you.

Enc.

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELT RESTRAINING APPARATUS FOR THE OLDER CHILD.

BACKGROUND OF THE APPARATUS.

Automobile safety for the Older Child, defined as a child weighing between 40 pounds and 85 pounds, is a much-neglected field. While infants are required by law to be restrained in an approved infant seat and younger children generally are required to o ccupy an approved booster seat, these seats are not appropriate for older children since in many instances they can no longer be accomodated in the confined space of the seat.

It has been suggested that children educated at an early age in the correct use of Lap/Shoulder safety belts are far more likely to continue the practice later in life.

However, with the introduction of new safety standards for 1990 requiring manufacturers to install three point Lap/Shoulder safety harnesses on the outboard rear seats of all automobiles, a potential problem looms in that these belts are designed primari ly for adults. Older Children attempting to wear Lap/Shoulder safety belts will invariably find that rather than correctly fitting, the shoulder portion of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt will cross the child's neck or face, which is both uncomfortable and dangerous.

The Older Child will usually solve the problem by placing the Shoulder portion of the belt behind their body, a practice which is highly dangerous since while the child's hips remain restrained, the upper torso is not, and so can propel forward in the ev ent of an accident.

The objective of this apparatus is to permit the adjustment of the Shoulder portion of the Lap/Shoulder seat belt downwardly into a position which correctly places the shoulder portion of the belt across the Older Child's chest and shoulder.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPARATUS.

The apparatus is comprised of an adjustable length of 2" wide safety belt webbing conforming to Standard No. 209, to which at each end is attached a fastener designed to firmly attach to the webbing of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt.

It connects to both the lap section and the shoulder section of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt and to no other structure in the automobile. The apparatus is connected firstly to the lap section of the Lap/Shoulder safety belt in a position which is the fu rthermost practical point away from and below the line of the Older Child's hip, and secondly to the shoulder section of the safety belt in a position above the line of the child's shoulder at a point which causes the shoulder section of the safety belt to be correctly placed across the Older Child's chest and shoulder.

As a consequence of the apparatus being solely attached to the existing Lap/Shoulder safety belt webbing, the forces generated during a collision will continue to be directed to and absorbed by the approved Lap/Shoulder safety belt and its anchorage poin ts.

The simplicity of construction of the apparatus and the ease in which an adult can connect it to or disconnect it from a Lap/Shoulder safety belt enhances its suitability for use as a supplemental child restaining device. Once connected, the Lap/Shoulde r safety belt will safely restrain the Older Child, and upon disconnecting only the uppermost fastener, the Lap/Shoulder safety belt can again be correctly worn by an adult.

The photograph hereunder illustrates clearly the mechanics of the apparatus and its application to Older Child automobile safety.

ID: NCC-231121-001 Autoliv (Veoneer) Spotlight Interpretation 1

June 27, 2024

Richard Seoane 

VP Operations and Business Development 

Thermal Product Area 

Veoneer 

420 South Fairview Avenue Goleta, CA 93117 

Dear Mr. Seoane: 

This responds to your request dated October 10, 2016, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, to a lighting system you describe in your letter. As I explain below, based on your description of the system we agree that it is supplemental lighting, but disagree with your assertion that it would not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting equipment. 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Description of the Marking Light and the Request for Interpretation 

In your letter, you request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 as applied to an auxiliary light designed to prevent nighttime crashes (the Marking Light). As you describe it, the Marking Light consists of two auxiliary spotlights operated independently of the headlighting system. The spotlights are mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline of the vehicle, below the headlamps, and pointed down at a fixed angle. The Marking Light operates independently of the upper and lower beam headlamps to produce a narrow, white-light beam pointed down to highlight the path to an object (such as a pedestrian) in or near the forward roadway so that the driver can see it. The Marking Light is activated and controlled by Autoliv’s Night Vision System, which has an infrared camera that detects pedestrian, bicyclist, and animal hazards up to 100 meters in front of the vehicle. The Night Vision System alerts the driver with in-vehicle 

Page 2
Richard Seoane 

visual (e.g., head-up display icon and/or dash icon) and audible signals indicating activation of the Marking Light and directs the Marking Light to illuminate the path over the ground to the hazard to visually alert the driver of the presence and location of the hazard. The system does not engage vehicle steering or brakes. The Marking Light cannot be activated manually by the driver or continuously operated; it is activated only by the night vision system when a hazard is detected to assist the driver in seeing the hazard but does not assist the driver in seeing the roadway. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding traffic so that it does not glare drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. 

You explain your position that the Marking Light is a supplemental lamp, not a required lamp such as a headlamp. You then make a variety of different arguments (and provide data) to support your view that the Marking Light does not impair the effectiveness of any of the required lighting. We summarize these arguments in more detail where relevant in the discussion below. 

Applicable Requirements 

FMVSS No. 108, which is codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.108, sets requirements for vehicle lighting. The standard requires a variety of types of lighting, depending on vehicle type and size, and specifies requirements for these required lighting elements. The standard also sets requirements (referred to as “if equipped” requirements) for some non-mandatory lighting devices, such as daytime running lamps. 

Lighting devices that FMVSS No. 108 does not require or regulate as “if equipped” lighting devices are considered supplemental (or auxiliary) lighting devices. Supplemental lighting is generally permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by the standard. See FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 (also referred to as the “impairment” provision). 

FMVSS No. 108 applies only to original equipment and lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108. The standard does not directly apply to supplemental lighting devices sold in the aftermarket. Instead, supplemental lighting offered as an aftermarket accessory is subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition (49 U.S.C. § 301222), which prohibits certain specified commercial entities (such as dealers or repair shops) from taking a vehicle out of compliance with an FMVSS. In applying the “make inoperative” prohibition to aftermarket accessory lighting, NHTSA typically asks whether the accessory lighting would impair the effectiveness of any required lighting. Generally, if an item of accessory lighting would not be permitted as original equipment, commercial entities will not be permitted to install the lighting as an aftermarket accessory for a vehicle in use. 

While the vehicle manufacturer has the legal responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108 and all other applicable FMVSS, as a practical matter, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet federal standards. The judgment of impairment is one made, in the first instance, by the person installing the device. That decision, however, may be questioned by NHTSA if it appears clearly erroneous. 

Page 3
Richard Seoane 

Discussion 

The threshold issue presented by your request is whether the Marking Light is part of the required headlighting system and thus subject to the requirements applicable to headlighting systems, or supplemental lighting that is regulated by FMVSS No. 108’s impairment provision. We agree with you that the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting. 

FMVSS No. 108 requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting systems.1 Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The purpose of headlamps is primarily to provide forward illumination.2 In determining whether lighting equipment that provides forward illumination is part of the required headlighting system or supplemental lighting, NHTSA looks at several factors. These factors have included, among other things: (1) where the lamp directs its light; (2) whether it uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps; (3) whether the lamp is intended to be used regularly, or is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; or (4) whether there is a manual on/off switch.3 

None of our previous interpretations appear to have addressed a frontal lighting concept precisely like the Marking Light. We agree with you, based on the information you have provided us, that it is supplemental lighting because it is not intended to be used regularly, but is instead a narrow beam that is activated only when there is a hazard forward of the vehicle such as a pedestrian or animal near the roadway. 

Because the Marking Light would be considered supplemental lighting, it is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by the standard. In its previous interpretation letters, NHTSA has identified a number of different ways that a supplemental lamp could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting.4 

With respect to the Marking Light, there are two types of impairment that are potentially relevant. One is the potential to confuse other drivers arising from the Marking Light’s color, location, or activation pattern.5 The other potentially relevant type of impairment is the potential for glare to other road users due to the intensity of the Marking Light. We address each of these potential types of impairment below. 

1 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a; S10.
2 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (“Headlamp means a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle.”).
3 See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to [Redacted] (Jan. 21, 2004). Prior to the 2004 interpretation letter, NHTSA issued several interpretations concerning auxiliary driving beams in which the agency treated those lamps as supplemental lighting without expressly considering the issue. See, e.g., Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, to P. Soardo, Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale (May 22, 1987). If the lamps in question in those earlier interpretations would be considered supplemental lighting under the factors set forth in the 2004 interpretation, they may be consistent with that later interpretation. There is not, however, sufficient information about the lighting systems at issue in those earlier interpretation letters to allow application of the factors from the 2004 interpretation. In any case, the 2004 interpretation has been, to date, NHTSA’s view of the issue.
4 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
5 See id. 

Page 4
Richard Seoane 

Color and Location 

The impairment provision prohibits auxiliary lamp colors that are likely to confuse other road users.6 For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused with a tail lamp), green (which could be confused with a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused with a law enforcement vehicle).7 

You state that because the Marking Light is white, it cannot be confused with a turn signal and would not conflict with the emergency (hazard) lamps or parking lamps. 

We agree that because the Marking Light is white and mounted below the headlamps, it would not likely be confused with the front turn signal (which is amber8) and would not conflict with the vehicle hazard warning (which consists of all required turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously9) or the parking lamps (which must be white or amber10). I therefore agree that the color and location of the Marking Light would not cause confusion with the vehicle’s signal lamps. 

Activation Pattern 

FMVSS No. 108 requires that all auxiliary lamps be steady burning except for auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.11 This requirement means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, not that it is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.12 However, the (de)activation of the lamp cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users. For example, a lamp that activates and deactivates on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in conditions would not be considered steady-burning.13 NHTSA has also interpreted the steady- 

6 Id.
7 Id.
8 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a.
9 Id. S6.6.2; S4 (definition of vehicle hazard warning signal flasher).
10 Id. Table I-a.
11 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019); Letter from Anthony Cooke, Chief Counsel, to Kerry Legg, New Flyer, Inc. (Feb. 21, 2008). Before 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with certain exceptions (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning. In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp. See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Id. Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.
12 See Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019).
13 See id. 

Page 5
Richard Seoane 

burning requirement to mean that headlamp intensity may modulate, but only if the changes in intensity are not detectable by the human eye.14 

You state that the Marking Light is steady burning in that it does not flash (cycle on and off). You state that the Marking Light is activated when the night vision system identifies a pedestrian, bicyclist, or large animal in or near the forward roadway as a hazard. When the object is no longer deemed a hazard, the night vision system switches off the Marking Light. We also understand that the intensity of the Marking Light does not modulate. 

We agree that, based on the facts represented to us in your letter, the Marking Light is steady burning and would therefore not violate the impairment provision in this respect. This conclusion assumes that the Marking Light does not activate and deactivate frequently (which could confuse or distract other road users) or change intensity while activated in a way that is detectable to the human eye. 

Brightness (Photometric Intensity) 

Supplemental lighting can also impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users15 or, relatedly, masks any of the required signal lighting.16 As a point of reference, we note that FMVSS No. 108 specifies two upper beam (or high beam) maxima, at H-V and 4D-V.17 The magnitude of the specified maxima depends on the type of upper beam system; for the purposes of this letter, we will compare the Marking Light to the highest specified maxima at each test point, which are 75,000 candela (cd) at H-V and 12,000 cd 

14 See, e.g., Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Kiminori Hyodo, Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Nov. 5, 2005); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (Mar. 10, 1994) (stating, in the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam”).
15 See, e.g., Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Yoshiaki Matsui, Stanley Elec. Co., Ltd. (Sept. 20, 1995) (fog lamp supplementing lower beam) (“Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles.”). Cf. Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Rusty Riggin, Willow Development (Aug. 2, 2002) (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it “create[d] distracting glare”).
16 See, e.g., Letter from Jonathan Morrison, Chief Counsel, to Paul Schaye, Pedestrian Safety Solutions (Sept. 9, 2019) (“NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to ‘mask’ adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.”); Letter From Samuel Dubbin, Chief Counsel, to Richard Russell (Dec. 22, 1995) (“[W]e would regard the vehicle manufacturer’s certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals.”).
17 FMVSS 108 Table XVIII. The photometry requirements specified in Table XVIII consist of test points at which the intensity of the light is measured. The requirements at each test point consist of minima and/or maxima. The test points are defined with respect to an angular coordinate system relative to the headlamp. Thus, H-V identifies a test point zero degrees up and zero degrees down relative to the headlamp, and 4D-V identifies a test point 4 degrees down relative to the headlamp. See also Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to Byung Soh, Target Marketing Systems (Sept. 13, 1988) (“Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard.”); Letter from Erika Jones, Chief Counsel, to George Ziolo (Sept. 12, 1988) (vehicle equipped with two upper beam headlamp systems would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed the upper beam maxima at H-V and 4D-V). 

Page 6
Richard Seoane 

at 4D-V. We consider the upper beam maxima as proper comparators because the Marking Light, like the upper beam, is designed to activate when no other cars are nearby.18 Just as upper beam headlamps are subject to maximum intensity limits, even though they are designed to turn off in the presence of oncoming traffic, the same concerns apply to forward-facing auxiliary lighting. 

You argue in your letter that the Marking Light will not glare other road users or mask any of the required signal lighting. You state that the Marking Light is disabled in the presence of oncoming traffic, so that its downward angle does not glare other drivers on a wet or shiny roadway. You also state that because the Marking Light is low to the ground and produces very little light above the horizontal plane of the headlamps, it cannot glare another driver or pedestrians. You state that because of these features, the Marking Light does not impair an oncoming driver’s ability to perceive the front turn signals. In a meeting with our office, you also indicated that the spotlamps on each side of the vehicle are generally not additive (combined). 

You also provided data on the intensity of the Marking Light (an iso-candela plot) based on on-vehicle measurements at a test laboratory. The photometric testing indicates that the Marking Light’s maximum intensity is 113,440 cd (at approximately four degrees down). You noted that the test setup resulted in higher estimated light intensities than what would be more accurately estimated by a goniometric component test conducted in a properly designed component lamp goniometry facility with appropriate stray light control. 

We believe that the Marking Light would violate the impairment provision because it would exceed—dramatically—the maximum permissible brightness of upper beams at 4D-V. This extreme intensity is a concern even if the Marking Light beam is aimed at a downward angle and the system is designed so that the light is disabled in the presence of oncoming and preceding vehicles, because it could still glare other motorists if the vision system does not correctly detect an oncoming or preceding vehicle and prevent the Marking Light from activating. This glare could happen, for example, if the vehicle crests the top of a hill when another vehicle is approaching, the vehicle encounters another vehicle at an intersection without detecting the other vehicle approaching from the side, or if the Marking Light reflects off wet pavement. 

We recognize that the photometric test setup led to overestimates of the Marking Light’s intensity. Nevertheless, the Marking Light is so intense that a more accurate estimate would likely still greatly exceed the upper beam maximum. We also note that the Marking Light’s intensity dramatically exceeds not only the upper beam maximum at 4D-V (12,000 cd), but also the maximum allowed for any individual upper beam headlamp (75,000 cd at H-V). This intensity presents a risk that other road users could be subject to significant glare. 

Conclusion 

I conclude that the Marking Light would be prohibited by the impairment provision in FMVSS No. 108 with respect to the Marking Light’s intensity at 4D-V.
18 FMVSS No. 108 S4 (upper beam defined as “beam intended primarily for distance illumination and for use when not meeting or closely following other vehicles”). 

Page 7
Richard Seoane 

If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. 

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/27/24
Ref: Standard No. 108

ID: nht72-4.10

DATE: 11/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Renault, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1972, concerning the seat adjustment procedures of S8.1.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

As described in your letter, some models manufactured by Renault have front seats that can be adjusted to an extreme forward position to allow the reclining seat back to be fully lowered. You imply that this position cannot be used for driving the vehicle, and ask whether the "forwardmost" position referred to in S8.1.2 could be interpreted to be the forwardmost driving position.

The purpose of S8.1.2 is to specify an adjustment position that is appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male occupant used in the standard's barrier tests. If the adjustment range is determined by using the extreme forward position you describe, the midway point would no longer be appropriate for the 50th percentile adult male size. It is therefore consistent with the purpose of S8.1.2 to exclude the extreme, non-driving positions in determining the midway adjustment position.

However, despite the references in some parts of the standard to an occupant of the 5th percentile adult female size, the adjustment range specified in S8.1.2 does not refer to this or any other size of occupant and we are of the opinion that no occupant size specification can be read into the section.

We would consider a position to be outside the range used to determine the midway point of S8.1.2 if it cannot reasonably be used for driving and if it is separated from other positions by a distance greater than the normal distance between positions. It would appear that the position described in your letter meets these criteria and that it should therefore be excluded in determining the midway position under S8.1.2.

ID: aiam3900

Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safet standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.; To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safet standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; Under our regulations, a 'bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designe for carrying 11 or more persons. 'School bus' is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.; The first question in your letter asked whether we require 'Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. Over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.; The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to al school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of these safety standards.; The first part to your second question asked, 'Does NHTSA consider a 1 inch crash barrier installed in front of standard 39 inch bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?'; The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standar No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.; The second part of this question asked, 'Would seat belts on the fron row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this standard for Type A vehicles? (We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)'(sic); The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restrainin barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.; The third part of this question asked, 'Would the location of the ga tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?'; The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements tha each school bus must meet, it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.; Your third question asked, 'Does NHTSA require the installation of metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 inches or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)'; Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards se any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.; If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3899

Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safet standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.; To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safet standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; Under our regulations, a 'bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designe for carrying 11 or more persons. 'School bus' is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.; The first question in your letter asked whether we require 'Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. Over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.; The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to al school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of these safety standards.; The first part to your second question asked, 'Does NHTSA consider 14- inch crash barrier installed in front of standard 39-inch bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?'; The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standar No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.; The second part of this question asked, 'Would seat belts on the fron row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this statement for Type A vehicles? (We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)'; The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restrainin barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.; The third part of this question asked, 'Would the location of the ga tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protection barrier?'; The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements tha each school bus must meet, it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.; Your third question asked, 'Does NHTSA require the installation of metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 inches or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)'; Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards se any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.; If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: ACSBcmc

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to an auxiliary child shoulder belt system (ACSB) for use with belt positioning boosters. Specifically, you ask whether the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt or as a child restraint system. As explained below, the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt.

Background

Your letter states that the ACSB would be an add-on shoulder belt that would allow the use of belt positioning boosters at seating positions equipped with lap belts only. You state that:

The add-on shoulder belt would be equipped with a standard buckle and length adjustment. It would easily attach to the lap belt buckle, and hook onto the standard top tether anchor for the rear outboard seating position using a standard tether hook.

You also state that the add-on shoulder belt would be recommended for children between 50 and 80 pounds. The add-on shoulder belt would not be originally installed in vehicles but would be provided as an aftermarket product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

Your letter asks about the applicability of four standards; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. I have addressed each standard below.

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210

Your assertion that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not apply to the ACSB is correct. FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Because the ACSB would not be part of the vehicle as manufactured or sold, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not be applicable. However, please note that any commercial business that would install this product would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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.

None of the above named businesses would be able to install this product if installation would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with an FMVSS.[1]

FMVSS No. 209

Under FMVSS No. 209, the add-on shoulder belt would be classified as a Type 2a shoulder belt. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard and applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in a vehicle or installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

FMVSS No. 209 defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as an "upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."[2] As you state in your letter, this product would provide upper torso restraint and would be intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt only, making it a Type 2a shoulder belt. Type 2a shoulder belts are generally not permitted as original equipment under FMVSS No. 208.[3] However, this general prohibition under FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle standard and does not prohibit the sale of Type 2a shoulder belts as aftermarket equipment.

You would be required to certify that the ACSB complies with the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 209. Under S4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 2a shoulder belt is required to "comply with applicable requirements for a Type 2 seat belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4, inclusive." While only those requirements raised by your letter are discussed below, keep in mind that the ACSB would be required to comply with all of the applicable requirements in S4.1 through S4.4.

S4.1 Requirements

S4.1(f) Attachment hardware

Type 2a seat belt assemblies have specific hardware requirements under FMVSS No. 209. However, because of the design and the intended manner of use of the ACSB, it would not be required to provide the attachment hardware specified under S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209. S4.1(f) requires that a seat belt assembly must include:

all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Installation," November 1973. However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.

Because the attachment hardware required under S4.1(f) is needed for permanent installation of the seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret S4.1(f) to apply only to seat belt assemblies designed for permanent installation. In this instance, the ACSB is designed to attach to a vehicles existing tether anchorage with the tether hook supplied with the ACSB, allowing for installation when a belt-positioning booster is placed in a seating position that has a lap belt. (The requirements for the tether hook are discussed later in this letter regarding S4.3.) Additionally, in the past we have not required seat belt buckles to comply with requirements that are obviously inapplicable.[4] Because the ACSB is not designed for permanent installation, it would not have to comply with the hardware requirements of S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209.

S4.1(g) Adjustment

The add-on system would not have to be certified as complying with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209, which requires Type 2a seat belt assemblies to be capable of fitting up to the dimensions of a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.1(g) contemplates seat belt assemblies that would be permanently installed in motor vehicles. Permanently installed belts need to fit a wide range of occupants. Conversely, the ACSB would be recommended for use only with a booster seat and only for children weighing between 50 and 80 lb. Because of this limited and specific recommended use, the ACSB would not be required to comply with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209. However, as discussed below, the ACSB must be labeled with information about the size of the occupants for whom it is intended.

S4.1(k) Installation instructions and S4.1(l) Usage and maintenance instructions

S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require appropriate installation and use instructions to be provided with the add-on shoulder belt. S4.1(k) requires the ACSB to be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient information for its proper installation. As such, in this case these instructions would have to including a statement that the assembly is for installation only in motor vehicles with an upper tether attachment point that meets the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 225. S4.1(l) requires that written instructions on proper use accompany the assembly. Because proper use of the ACSB would only be with a booster seat and only for children up to 80 lb, the instructions would be required to specify as such. Also under S4.1(l), a warning would have to be provided stating that the system is not to be used without a lap belt or by occupants weighing over 80 pounds. In addition, we suggest that you consider placing warning labels on the belt to inform occupants of the weight and use restrictions.

S4.2 Requirements for Webbing

FMVSS No. 209 establishes several requirements for the webbing used in a Type 2a shoulder belt. These include width, strength and elongation requirements.

S4.2(a) Width

S4.2(a) establishes a minimum width for specific portions of webbing in a seat belt assembly, including a Type 2a belt. Seat belt assembly webbing must be a minimum of 46 mm in width, except for portions that do not touch a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.2(a) ensures that belt webbing coming into contact with an occupant spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury. The shoulder belt portion of the add-on belt meets the minimum width, but the attachment webbing for the add-on buckle is of narrower width.

You state that the narrower webbing is not intended to apply restraint force to the occupant and is of a short, non-adjustable length. If the narrower webbing would not apply restraint force to the occupant, then the webbing need not meet the minimum width requirement.

S4.2(b) Breaking strength and S4.2(c) Elongation

You state that the ACSB buckle is attached to the lap belt with a short loop of 25 mm wide webbing. You concluded that because the ACSB buckle webbing would be used solely as a loop in the assembly, the strength and elongation requirements should be applied to the webbing as a loop and not to a single piece of webbing. We disagree. After the ACSB buckle is attached to the vehicles lap belt, it would be possible for the ACSB buckle attachment to experience a substantial portion of the loading along a single piece of webbing, not the loop. If the webbing were to break at a point on a single strap, the anchoring could fail. In addition, the load may not be distributed equally across both sections of the loop. One section could experience a higher load than the other. Because of these potential consequences, the strength and elongation requirements of S4.2(b) and S4.2(c) would be applied to a single piece of the ACSB buckle webbing and not to the webbing as a loop.

S4.3 Requirements for Hardware

S4.3(c) Attachment hardware

The tether hook used to anchor the add-on shoulder belt to the tether anchorage at an adjacent seating position would be considered a "quick-disconnect" type of attachment hook under FMVSS No. 209 and would be required to meet certain strength requirements. The tether hook is a single hook and would be capable of quickly connecting to, and disconnecting from, the tether anchorage, which acts as an eye bolt. Under S4.3(c)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies having single attachment hooks of the quick-disconnect type for connecting webbing to an eye bolt shall be provided with a retaining latch or keeper ("keeper"). "Keepers" must be certified as not moving more than 2 millimeters (mm) in either the vertical or horizontal position when force is applied as specified in S5.2(c)(3). The "keeper" requirements ensure that the attachment hardware does not disconnect when loaded. Because the tether hook used with the add-on belt would function as a quick-disconnect type of attachment hook for a Type 2a seat belt, the tether hook spring clip would be required to comply with the "keeper" strength requirements under FMVSS No. 209.

FMVSS No. 213

In your letter, you ask if the add-on shoulder belt would be defined as a child restraint system (CRS) under FMVSS No. 213 if it were recommended for children between 40 and 80 lb. Because this assembly would be a Type 2a assembly, it would be excluded from the definition of a CRS. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines a CRS as any device, except a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 lb or less.[5] (Emphasis added.) The add-on shoulder belt is intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt. Under the intended use, the entire assembly would provide pelvic and upper torso restraint and function as a Type 2 seat belt assembly. As a component of a Type 2 assembly, this product would not be a CRS under FMVSS No. 213. We note that while the ACSB is currently excluded from the definition of a CRS, Antons Law (Pub. L. No. 107-318; 2002) requires NHTSA to consider whether to include injury performance criteria for booster seats "and other products for use in motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds" under FMVSS No. 213.

In closing, the agency encourages approaches that may increase the use of child restraint systems, provided that the approaches comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do not compromise the safety of motor vehicle occupants. As with any product that is designed to attach to an existing device on a vehicle, we urge you to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of misuse of the product. Further, the use of an additional buckle on a product used to restrain children could increase the difficulty in releasing the child in an emergency situation. We appreciate your concern in thoroughly considering these and all other safety issues.

If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209#213
d.4/8/03





---




[1] It is unclear whether additional loading from the ACSB would adversely impact the vehicles existing belt and anchorage systems. You should determine if the ACSB would negatively impact compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, or 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 S3, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

[3] The agency determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair (58 FR 11975; March 2, 1993).

[4] See letter from Frank Berndt to Donald J. Gobeille, dated April 4, 1976, in which the agency states that buckles that are unlikely to contact the steering wheel in a crash situation do not have to meet the crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209.

[5] The agency is considering amending the definition to include devices recommended for use by children 65 lb or less. (67 FR 21836.)

ID: 1985-01.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting several interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.

In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement of S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.

On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application of Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.

In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will have four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.

Paragraph S.4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.

In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength test applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.

The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 to Mazada that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency to clarify the words "fold" and "tumble" used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that "fold" means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and "tumble" means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.

In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the word "receptacle" as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word "receptacle" refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

OCC 1578

Ref. No. 84-007 Date Nov. 26, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear sir,

Subject: Questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 201, 208 and 210

We, DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD., plan to export our vehicles to U.S.A. We have some questions to conform our vehicle to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We would like to ask you to answer the questions described in Attachment I, Attachment II and Attachment III.

Your earliest and kind response will be greatly appreciated.

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Attachment I: Standard No. 201

The underlined part of the paragraph S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 as follows is not clear at which section the armrest shall be measured vertically.

S3.5.1(c) "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area."

We understand it shall be measured at the section b shown in Fig. 1. If our understanding is wrong, please explain or illustrate in detail.

Fig. 1

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment II: Standard Nos. 208 and 210

We are developing an occupant protection system shown in Fig. 2. It consists of an automatic belt and optionally Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

Fig. 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 1.

We understand that the paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208 means "An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3 that is required to meet the perpendicular frontal (Illegible Word) protection requrements of S5.1 neet not conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209." Then, shall the automatic belt conform only to S4.1.2.1 (including S5.1), S4.5.3.3(including S7.1) and S4.1.1 of Standard No. 208, and need not conform to any requirements of Standard No. 209?

Question 2.

Our vehicle with the automatic belt will have four anchorages for one front seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly), and have no anchorages for a three-point manual seat belt assembly. Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboad designated seating position in passenger cars. We cannot understand what the seat belt anchorages for the Type 2 seat belt assembly mean. Are the anchorages of the vehicle regarded as the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt anchorages? To conform to Standard No. 210, shall the vehicle install any other anchorages?

Question 3.

We cannot find any requirements about the strength test of anchorages for an automatic belt. To conform to Standard No. 210, we will test the anchorages of the vehicle by the way shown in Fig. 3 according to the test procedures for the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly described in Standard No. 210. If our test procedure is wrong, please explain it in detail.

Fig. 3

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment III

Question 1.

The difference of meanings between "fold" and "tumble" in the paragraph S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208 is not clear. We understand that the meaning of the word "fold" is to move the seat back forward shown in Fig. 4-a, and that the meaning of the word "tumble" is to move both the seat cushion and the seat back shown in Fig. 4-b. If our understanding is wrong, please explain the meanings.

Question 2.

We cannot understand the word "receptacle" in paragraph S7.4.6.2. So please explain what the phrase "the inboard receptacle end of a seat belt assembly" means.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 208interpMT

Mr. Kevin Murphy #12810
PO Box 916
Shelby, MT 59474





Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You asked about the interaction between federal law and two provisions of Montana law - that requiring the use of seat belts and that disallowing evidence of non-use to be used in liability trials.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208.

However, requirements that relate to the use of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, such as seat belts, and issues relating to liability for failure to use seat belts are governed by State, not Federal, laws.

You refer in your letter to provisions of Montana law. I believe the provisions of Montana's law to which you refer include Sections 61-13-103 and 61-13-106 of Montana's Annotated Code. Section 61-13-103 provides that "No driver may operate a motor vehicle upon a highway of the state of Montana unless each occupant of a designated seating position is wearing a properly adjusted and fastened seatbelt," except pursuant to certain specified exemptions. Mont. Code Anno., 61-13-103(1), (2). Section 61-13-106 provides that "Evidence of compliance or failure to comply with 61-13-103 is not admissible in any civil action for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to comply with 61-13-103 does not constitute negligence." Mont. Code Anno., 61-13-106.

States may enact such provisions and they do not conflict with federal law. For further information about Montana's laws and the manner in which they are interpreted and applied, you may contact the Office of the Attorney General in the State of Montana.

We appreciate your interest in seat belt use. For more information on NHTSA's efforts to encourage seat belt use, please see our website -- www.NHTSA.dot.gov -- and www.buckleupamerica.org. Those sites contain valuable information and resources that you may find helpful in any efforts to bring awareness to this important issue in your area. You may also access information relating to the motor vehicle safety standards.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.4/17/02

ID: 1985-01.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27267

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 59 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.

I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first part with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.

We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a four passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:

The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 75 and rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch width seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position.

The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inch seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 22 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is "to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress." Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I would like to request an interpretation of the Federal Standard #222 - School Bus Seating and Crash Protection.

Currently, buses with the engine location in the rear, produced by this company, have been seated two-ways as follows:

1. In non-school buses the last row of seats is a single seat across the total width of the vehicle.

2. In the school bus of this type the last row of seats include two separate 39" seat, one on the right and one on the left, leaving an area between the seats for access to the rear emergency exit.

My question is, "Would it be in compliance with Federal Standard #222 to place the single, full width, 90" seat, at the last row of the school bus and designate it as a four passenger seat?"

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jm

ID: 1984-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BoPeep Nursery Products Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen Sher President BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario May 1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Sher:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of Standard No. 213 apply to a system which is designed for use solely by children who weigh more than 50 pounds and is so labeled. Standard No. 213 does not apply to devices intended solely to restrain children who weigh more than 50 pounds.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds" (emphasis added). If your product is designed solely for use by children who weigh more than 50 pounds, it would not be a "child restraint" as that term is defined in Standard No. 213, and so would not be subject to the requirements of the Standard.

You should be aware of the requirements of sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414), which specify that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. This could become relevant to the sale of your product in several ways. For example, if the seating system were marketed and sold in such a way that it would be likely to be often used by children under 50 pounds, and were not certified as complying with Standard No. 213, it might well be found to contain a safety-related defect.

To prevent such unintended usage, I strongly recommend that the device be clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by this system. I would further recommend that your marketing efforts and point of sale materials highlight the size and age of child which your system is designed to restrain.

Another potential safety-related defect finding which could be made would occur if testing showed that children of the age and size intended to use your seating system were safer using a 3- point belt alone than the seating system with a 3-point belt. To ensure that this finding is not made, I would recommend some testing or engineering analysis by your company to show that your seating system when used with the 3-point belt system is at least as safe for use by its intended occupants as a standard 3-point belt would be when used alone.

Should you have any further questions or need any further information in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 25, 1984.

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL Room #5219 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, DC USA 20590

Attention: Mr. Stephen Kretzke

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

During our conversation of June 20th we had mentioned our need for an interpretation on Section S4 of FMVSS 213 and how our initial inquiry was directed through Calspan.

We have enclosed a copy of Calspan findings for your attention and are requesting confirmation of its contents.

We are also concerned that our point of sale material can highlight that our seat can be used for children 3 years of age and up and for children who are over 50 lbs.

We request your prompt reply to this inquiry as we are looking forward to entering the American market quite soon.

Yours Truly,

BO-PEEP NURSERY PRODUCTS LIMITED

Stephen Sher President

SS:sb Encl.

June 15, 1984

Mr. Stephen Shir BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario M8Y1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Shir:

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) to your new booster seat, the Shuttle Seat, designed for children over 50 pounds in weight.

Section S4 of FMVSS 213 defines child restraint systems which must meet the specified requirements as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." On June 15, 1984, I received a verbal interpretation of Section S4 from the Department of Transportation's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in conjunction with the Office of Chief Counsel, that child restraint systems designed and labelled for use by children over 50 pounds are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Based upon the above interpretations and our evaluation of your booster seat, it is our opinion that, if the device is labelled for use only by children over 50 pounds that is is exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

I hope this information is of use to you. Please feel free to call me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Walsh, Head Biomechanical Sciences Section Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department kd