ID: aiam4584

"Dear Mr. Munson: This responds to your letter in which you suggeste that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). With respect to manual belt systems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assembly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no. Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.' Section S3 of Standard No. 209 defines a 'load limiter' as 'a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash.' These provisions of Standard No. 209 seemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic restraint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements. On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the dynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208. In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longer complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requirements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5: T here are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619, January 12, 1981. You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts. As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800, March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manual belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44898, November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579, February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the same way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used 'in conjunction with an automatic restraint system' should be interpreted to mean load limiters may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system. I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that 'includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.' I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term 'automatic restraint system,' as used in S4.5, to mean 'automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system.' An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of the underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard. 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";

ID: aiam5509

Dear Mr. Gower: In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of th Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of 'school bus.' By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment prior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) NHTSA defines a 'bus' as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a 'school bus' as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3. Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of 'school bus' in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding 3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities. There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes. This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition. I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standard applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law. The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a one-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident. I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Larry Wort Donald J. McNamara;

ID: aiam3949

Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning th applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 207, *Seating Systems*, 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.; Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, thei attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat beck.; Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belt in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.; If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.3(c) of the standar provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety felt that conforms to Standard No. 209.; Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belt anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-3.4

DATE: 11/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Hodgson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1973, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on the driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. If for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.

Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.

In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on the Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be

2 aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.

We appreciate your inquiry.

Yours Truly,

PAUL R. HODGSON

ATTORNEY AT LAW TULSA, OKLAHOMA

October 26, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are writing for an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Section S3.2.1.2 (Mounting, which states: "The mounting shall provide a staole support for the mirror and neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude further than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S3.2.1.1. The mirror shall not be obscured by the unwiped portion of the windshield, and shall be adjustable from the driver's seated position. The mirror and mounting shall be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrain injury. (32 F.R. 5495 -- April 4, 1967))".

Marion W. Loveless, 1150 South Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma, manufacturers rear view mirrors for mobile homes. Traveco Corp. manufacturers mobile homes with wrap around front windshields. Traveco likes Marion's mirrors and would like very much to have them installed on their mobile homes as standard equipment. Traveco wants to be assured that these mirrors are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.

Marion owns a Traveco mobile home and designed these mirrors for his own use. The most important feature of these mirrors, is: You can see both without taking your eyes off the road, even for an instant. The mirrors are mounted and adjusted in such a manner that a clear and full view to the rear is provided

2 regardless of the height of the individual driving or the place (forward or back) in which the seat is placed (to adjust for leg length. There are no blind spots since you can look over the top of the mirror rather than around it.

We have enclosed pictures for your assistance in visualizing the appearance, location, and effectiveness of these mirrors. Picture #1 gives you the location on the vehicle and the way it is mounted. Picture #2 gives you a view of the left mounted mirror from the driver's eye position. The doors are 10 x 12 feet and the mirror is approximately 100 feet from the doors. Please note that, looking directly at the mirror, one can still see the area in front of the vehicle. Picture #3 is a view from the driver's eye position looking straight down the road. Please note that one can, at the same time, see clearly the rear view from the mirror. Picture #4 shows a view from the driver's eye position. It clearly shows another mobile home in the rear view mirror (left). Picture #5 shows the view, from the driver's eye position, of the right rear view mirror. This clearly shows that the mirror is located in a position where the passenger cannot obstruct the view of the mirror. Picture #6 shows the mirror with the windshield wiper in its furthest left position in relation to the left mirror.

Although the mirror cannot be adjusted from the driver's position, it is mounted and adjusted, when installed, so that it is effective from all positions of the driver in the seat and his height. Marion has driven his for 2 years and never adjusted it since installation. Although the mirror is not within the windshield wiper area, experience has shown its location is such that, driving in the rain and with road dirt and oil, the mirror still retains better than 80% visibility. This is due to the fact the windshield curves and the wind coming around the curve blows the rain, dirt, snow, etc. off the glass through which you look to see the mirror. These mirrors were designed specifically for Traveco and those other mobile homes having a wrap around windshield and a small post. There is a defroster blower mounted inside the windshield which prevents

3 frost, ice, and snow from obstructing a view of the mirror.

We respectfully request an interpretation that the mirrors described above are in full and adequate compliance with Standard No. 111. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Paul K. Hodgson Attorney for Marion W. Loveless

I have read the above and foregoing request for interpretation and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Marion W. Loveless

cc: Bud K. Smith, Traveco Corp. Charles Kaehn

ID: 3240yy

Mr. Floyd J. Barkman
Vice President Sales & Marketing
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Barkman:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to Ms. Susan Schruth of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Because your questions concern a final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ms. Schruth has referred your letter to our office for response. Your questions are as follows.

1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings?

Your understanding of the September 1, 1991, final rule is correct. The only exception to these requirements is that the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement does not apply to rear outboard seating positions located adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to allow access to more rearward seating positions. I am enclosing a copy of the Federal Register notice for this final rule. A discussion of this exception is found on page 46258. A discussion of the agency's rationale for excluding small school buses from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement is found on page 46260 of the same notice.

2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus interiors with school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness?

The answer to this question depends on whether these vehicles are classified as school buses. Under NHTSA's certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle's type is determined using the definitions set out in 49 CFR 571.3. A school bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, to and from school or school-related events. A program for pre-primary age children is considered a school if the program is primarily educational rather than custodial in nature. If your vehicle is a not a school bus, it must comply with the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement. If the vehicle is a school bus, it does not have to comply with this requirement.

I hope this information is 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

Enclosure /ref:208 d:12/6/9l

ID: 003059 bts

Mr. Joe Masci
Pollak Switch Products Division
300 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Masci:

This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below.

1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209.

You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:

[A]ny component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:

[A]ny strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 209)

In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210.

2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements

In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance.

Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b).

S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2).

S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b).

3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware.

You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle.

For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible.

4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required.

We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively.

5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components.

You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.7/16/03





---

[1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986.

ID: aiam2386

Dear Mr. Bishop: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for informatio regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to 'rumble seat kits' for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:; (1) 'Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulation that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>The answer to your question is no.<<< (2) 'What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards an Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of th vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*.; We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in complete vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers t provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.<<<; (3) 'Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that t your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>We are not aware of any State or local regulations that woul preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.<<<; (4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testin facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?'; >>>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.<<<; (5) 'Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to th installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding th manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.<<<; (6) 'Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related t the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relatin to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.<<<; The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation i which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.; Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, '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. . . .' Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, or Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 77-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states are preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which regulates maximum seat spacing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Section 103(d):

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.

The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandate minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.

The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states as broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 29, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification regarding the seat spacing requirements of FMVSS 222 vs the seat spacing specifications which have been or are in the process of being adopted by the states.

FMVSS 222 specifies a maximum seat spacing of 20 inches in S5.2.1 measured from the SRP forward to the rear surface of the next seat or barrier.

Some states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, minimum knee space dimensions from the front of a seat back measured forward to the back of the next seat back. As might be expected, in the specifications which have been adopted so far, there is a lack of uniformity. For example, one specification calls for "a minimum of 24 inches knee space measured horizontally at the seat cushion level at the transverse center line of the seat." This requires 24 inches knee space in the area of the seat back which is recessed for knees but allows less than 24" around the periphery of the seat frame. Another specification requires "24 inches minimum knee space measured across the full width of the seat back." With the latter specification, using a seat back pad recessed in the knee area, the 20 inches maximum spacing requirement of S5.2.1 can easily be exceeded in the recessed area when seats are positioned to get at least 24 inches knee space at the closet point between two seats.

The following is exerpted from the preamble to FMVSS 222 published in the Federal Register of January 27, 1976.

"Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat spacing, other than one identical to the Federal requirement for maximum spacing of 20 inches from the SRP, is preempted under @@ 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d)."

Based on this discussion it is our understanding that states are preempted from adopting any school bus seat spacing specification which differs in any way from the requirements of FMVSS 222; i.e. a maximum of 20 inches from the SRP.

Is this understanding correct? If so, we believe it would be helpful if the NHTSA published a bulletin to this effect to the states. This would prevent the adoption of specifications by the states which conflict with FMVSS 222.

Please be assured there is considerable current activity in this area by the states and a solution to this dilemma is urgently needed.

Your early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht91-7.35

DATE: December 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Floyd J. Barkman -- Vice President Sales & Marketing, Collins Bus Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Floyd J. Barkman to Susan Schruth (OCC 6589)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 16, 1991, to Ms. Susan Schruth of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Because your questions concern a final rule issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Ms. Schruth has referred your letter to our office for response. Your questions are as follows.

1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings?

Your understanding of the September 1, 1991, final rule is correct. The only exception to these requirements is that the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement does not apply to rear outboard seating positions located adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle to allow access to more rearward seating positions. I am enclosing a copy of the Federal Register notice for this final rule. A discussion of this exception is found on page 46258. A discussion of the agency's rationale for excluding small school buses from the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement is found on page 46260 of the same notice.

2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus interiors with school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness?

The answer to this question depends on whether these vehicles are classified as school buses. Under NHTSA's certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle's type is determined using the definitions set out in 49 CFR S571.3. A school bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, to and from school or school-related events. A program for pre-primary age children is considered a school if the program is primarily educational rather than custodial in nature. If your vehicle is a not a school bus, it must comply with the rear-seat lap/shoulder belt requirement. If the vehicle is a school bus, it does not have to comply with this requirement.

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

Attached to Federal Register 49 CFR Part 571 pages 46257 - 46268 (text omitted)

ID: nht78-1.42

DATE: 01/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Winsconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 16, 1977, letter requesting again that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reinterpret its 20-inch measurement of occupant seat spacing in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Mr. Levin indicated in an earlier response to your letter that seat spacing is measured at the point of greatest distance separating the seats. This measurement is used to ensure that impact forces do not exceed the forces the seat is designed to sustain or absorb. To measure as you suggest would require redesigning school bus seats to ensure their ability to sustain or absorb increased impact loads.

The NHTSA has received a number of complaints on seat spacing in school buses manufactured in compliance with the subject regulations. We have met with most of the major school bus manufacturers discussing production seat spacings and the Federal requirements. The agency has found that manufacturers are producing buses with seat spacings which are, in some cases, 3 inches less than the maximum specified by the regulations. These large reductions in seat spacing result principally from manufacturers' choices in designing the seats. Such seat spacing reductions are not found in all seats designed to meet the regulations.

Through its monitoring of the standard's implementation, the NHTSA has discovered that manufacturers are not achieving the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the time the regulation was issued. The installation of seats in school buses cannot be done with the precision that the NHTSA had anticipated. Accordingly, manufacturers in their attempts to ensure they do not violate the 20-inch space requirement must design seat spacing as much as an inch short of the 20-inch spacing allowance. The result is seat spacing which is less than the agency contemplated. The NHTSA has taken expeditious action to alleviate this problem.

On December 20, 1977, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 by increasing the maximum allowable distance from the seating reference point to the seat back from 20 to 21 inches. The agency intended that the measurement be approximately 20 inches. A seat spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20-inch spacing by taking manufacturing tolerances into account. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing this change in the rule was also issued on December 20, 1977.

SINCERELY,

Wisconsin SCHOOL BUS Association

October 16, 1977 Administrator Joan Claybrook Nat'l Hwy. Traffic safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W.

REFERENCE: NOA-30

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We are in receipt of a letter from NHTSA Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin Jr., in response to our request for an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In his letter of October 7, 1977, Mr. Levin advises us of a similar request for an interpretation on the measurement of school bus seat spacing by Gillig Bros., Hayward, California, (manufacturers of school buses) on September 13, 1976. Gillig Bros. were informed that, according to an interpretation of Standard No. 222 by the NHTSA, the measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back - exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface.

We would suggest that this query by Gillig Bros. to the NHTSA was a very typical request by a manufacturer wishing to receive a clarification on a specification or regulation. We are not aware that manufacturers, users of school buses, or the NHTSA envisioned, at that time in 1976, that a very serious problem in seat spacing would be created by the performance standards of Standard 222 which control seat design . . . . and in that light suggest the possibility that the NHTSA responded to the 1976 Gillig Bros. query with a clarification of the measurement for seat spacing, rather than a formal interpretation on the subject.

In this intervening period since September of 1976, seat designs have been established, conforming to the criteria of Standard No. 222. School buses, built to the federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977, began to appear in the marketplace.

Prospective purchasers throught the Nation were appalled by the restricted knee-room available to the seated passengers. Widespread opposition to this restricted seat spacing has mounted rapidly as more and more school district administrators and school bus contractors view the "new school bus" for the first time and endeavor to seat the upper-grade students in the confined seating.

The immediate effects have been that school boards have recinded local ordances limiting the age of equipment used for pupil transportation; school bus contractors have revised operational policies and, instead of adhering to their normal vehicle replacement programs, intend to obtain longer utilization of school buses in their fleets by upgrading maintenance programs; and school bus passengers are resisting any but the shortest of rides in those seats with their cramped, restricted seating space.

The result is that school boards, school bus contractors, and school bus body manufacturers are recognizing that the new school bus seating will discourage, to a great extent, the transportation of other than children in the lower/middle grades. Passengers will shun these vehicles like the plague for extra-curricular activities and field trips. The opposition to these seats will force school boards to look elsewhere for other types of transportation for these activities. Manufacturers of school bus bodies recognized this possibility long ago, as they viewed the seat spacing mandated by Standard 222, and submitted a petition to the NHTSA for a special sub-classification of school bus - an activity bus with greater seat spacing - that would replace the conventional school bus for these and other activities.

Our school districts - our communities - cannot withstand the tremendous expense of another separate bus fleet this "activity bus" petition would create. Our school districts will not be able to withstand the opposition they will experience against utilization of the "new" school bus with its restrictive seat spacing; but at the same time, their budgets will be incapable of withstanding the alternative . . . . separate bus fleets, taxicabs, payment for pupil transportation by parents.

Our industry realizes that the seats designed to conform to Standard 222 have thicker cushioning; that the same number of seats as was installed in a "pre-April 1, 1977" school bus requires a longer bus body on the new bus. Our industry realizes that allowing a greater seat spacing may require an even longer bus body, or perhaps fewer rows of seats in the bus . . . . but the alternatives are far beyond our school district budget's ability to underwrite.

It is for these reasons that we suggest the questions facing you today are far different than those posed to the NHTSA in September of 1976. It is for these reasons that we respectfully suggest that the NHTSA, recognizing that the question of seat spacing today has far greater implications than in 1976, may wish to allow an immediate relief from the problem through the expediency of a permissive interpretation that would permit school bus manufacturers to measure the knee-room distance at a point where the seat back components are the closest.

May we once again request your considerations for this prmissive interpretation? It is the opinion of the Wisconsin School Bus Association, representative of Wisconsin's pupil transportation industry - and other pupil transportation industry members and representatives throughout the Nation - that this permissive ability would be an important and immediate interim answer to this perplexing and serious problem.

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary