ID: nht72-6.1

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The United Methodist Church

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, in which you request information relating to your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)and regulations issued thereunder.

Motor homes are not defined as such under the regulations. They fall in the category of a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would be subject to all of the standards that apply to that type vehicle.

I am enclosing the following publications. The answers to your questions can be found therein:

1. The Act

2. December 2, 1971, edition of the Federal Register - Recodification

3. Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification

4. Part 567 - Certification

5. Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages

6. Part 573 - Defect Reports

7. Part 574 - Tire Identification

8. Notice of Publications Change

In the event you purchase an incomplete vehicle (chasis) from Cadillac, they will furnish the documentation as required by Part 568. In modifying the chassis you assume the role as an intermediate manufacturer and the recreational vehicle manufacturer becomes the final stage manufacturer. All terms are defined in Part 568.

Federal regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of your inquiry is being furnished to the Director, Division of Certification and Surveillance, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. He will, I am sure, forward such information as he deems appropriate.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Norman E. Douglas Pastor and Student Chaplain Alfred, New York

MAY 2, 1972

Motor Vehicle Programs Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

I am interested in beginning a proposed project for modification of an available chassis for use as base for motor homes. The Cadillac commercial chassis is used by coach builders for hearses and ambulances. I have conceived the idea of suitable modifying this chassis for use by Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers for the use in motor homes. I have completed a pilot project, taking the chassis from a used hearse, and combining it with a commercially built travel trailer to make a 24 foot motor home. This vehicle has been registered in New York State, and had successfully completed over 4,000 miles, including a winter trip to Florida.

I am now in communication with the Cadillac Division of General Motors, seeking to persuade them of the suitability of this chassis for such use. The chassis changes I found necessary involved relocating the dash, driver controls and driver seating to a cab-forward, over-engine position. This involved re-routing steering, braking and engine controls. Beyond this the Cadillac chassis was used almost completely intact.

In anticipation of using new Cadillac chassis for such modification, could you please tell me what safety regulations, certifications and/or testing would be necessary prior to selling such modified chassis to the Recreational Vehicle trade? Would you please send me copies of what would be construed as applicable regulations, please?

Could you also outline for me, in rough fashion, the respective areas of responsibility of Cadillac Division as original manufacturer, of my own firm as chassis modifier, and of the Recreational Vehicle manufacturer as assembler of the final vehicle?

It appears at present that I will have to operate separately from the Cadillac Division, dealing directly with the (Illegible Words). If a large enough market appears, I will need to know what federal regulations must be complied with before our project can begin. Your help in this field will be gratefully appreciated.

VERY SINCERELY,

Norman E. Douglas

ID: nht92-7.16

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/20/92 from John W. Phillips to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 07-000295as

ID: 17385.wkm

Mr. William Daws
B & W Farm Center
7581 East Monroe Road (M-46)
Breckenridge, MI 48615

Dear Mr. Daws:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff asking whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), would apply to your truck glider kits. The answer is yes.

The agency's regulation with regard to the combination of new and used components is found at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)(as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

By its terms, therefore, paragraph 571.7(e) applies to specific situations in which a new cab or body is combined with used chassis components. Stated another way, the resulting vehicle will constitute a new vehicle unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)are used and any two of those component came from the same vehicle. If, on the other hand, either the engine, transmission, and/or drive axle(s) are new or no two of them are from the same vehicle, then the vehicle is new. If the vehicle is considered new, it must be certified to meet all applicable safety standards (including ones requiring ABS) in effect as of the date of its manufacture (not the date the vehicle was ordered or delivered). See 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked whether a truck is required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards even if approximately 80 percent of its use will be off-road, in this case, farm use. The answer is yes.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)(hereinafter Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle.

Nothing in your letter suggests that your trucks should be treated any differently from any other trucks, which are clearly motor vehicles. We note that a particular customer's planned use would not ordinarily affect whether a vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if your particular customers' planned use were relevant, 20 percent would represent a substantial amount of time on-road.

I am also enclosing for your information fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#567#568#571
d.12/4/98

ID: 13193.drn

Mr. Jir Misk
Chief, Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869
293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misk:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Area "A" to be wiped on motor vehicle windshields, as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Your question is answered below.

Your letter states your understanding of two ways in which Area A is to be measured, and asks which of the two is correct:

1. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, may enter into the windshield perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening in which case the area "A" may be reduced to keep the 25 mm perimeter zone intact for the purpose of calculating the performance of wipers or,
2. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, must always meet both of these requirements at the same time--
   
   1. specific angles 16 to 18
   2. remain (on the windshield) bounded by the perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening (it can not intervene into the perimeter zone of 25 mm). Area 'A' can not be reduced.

Statement One is correct. Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. It is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by the angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border) as indicated by Statement Two.

S.4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Area A of the windshield is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a. S3.1 states:

[Area A] ... has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line.

S3.1's description means that Area A is not a fixed, predetermined area for all windshields, but is an area that varies from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Area A as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Furthermore, not all of Area A must be wiped. In Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped.

Please note that since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 in specifying Area A as the applicable cleared area, the above description of Area A also applies to Standard No. 103.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:103#104
d:5/6/97

ID: 14285.mls

Mr. Ken Bratlie
President
Columbia Corporation
5775 NW Wagon Way
Hillsboro, OR 97124-8531

Dear Mr. Bratlie:

This responds to your inquiry about whether two types of "trailer tippers" (a "Woods Products Trailer Tipper" and a "Landfill Trailer Tipper") are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A trailer tipper is used to empty the contents from a semitrailer onto the ground by elevating (tipping) one end of the trailer and pouring the content out the other end. You state that each trailer tipper stays at an off-road work site, such as a mill or a landfill, the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites.

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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

Whether the agency considers your trailer tippers to be motor vehicles depends on their use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer tippers are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in your letter that the trailer tippers typically spend extended periods of time at a single site and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the trailer tippers on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. Since your trailer tippers are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, the trailer tippers would not be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer tippers used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer tippers are motor vehicles, then they would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, if the trailer tipper were a motor vehicle, while it would not be required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, if your trailers were motor vehicles, you, as a motor vehicle manufacturer, would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States in which your trailer tippers are used about any such requirements.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/6/97

ID: 21345.drn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ref:217
d.4/6/2000

ID: 2509y

Timothy A. Kelly, President
Salem Vent International, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Salem, VA 24153

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed horizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit openings. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This understanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue. Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of the bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding roof exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in determining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whether the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:5/30/90

ID: nht94-1.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 15, 1993, in which you requested an interpretation of the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993, 58 FR 4586, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection to include requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems.

You referred to the second sentence in S5.4.3.2 of the standard which provides in pertinent part: "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint shares a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multi plied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage." You stated that you believe that this language is intended to address the situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage, a nd is not intended to address the situation "where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system." You stated that if the latter, the floor ancho rage would be required to withstand a force of 13,344 Newtons each for the upper torso restraint and the pelvic restraint; and if the wheelchair was also secured to that floor anchorage, the anchorage would be required to withstand 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

Your letter included two figures illustrating typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system designs. In Figure 1, the upper torso restraint is attached to the lap belt at the buckle, and the lap belt is attached to the vehicle at the same anchorage as the rear anchorage for the wheelchair securement device. In Figure 2, the upper torso restraint is also attached to the lap belt; however, the lap belt is attached to the rear wheelchair securement device instead of the wheelchair securemen t anchorage. You asked for verification that the required load for the rear anchorages for both designs is 2 x 13,344 Newtons rather than 3 x 13,344 Newtons.

You are correct that the load for the rear anchorages for both these designs would be 26,688 Newtons (2 x 13,344 Newtons). The relevant section to determine this load is S5.4.3.2(e) which states:

When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1. 3 (13,344 Newtons) and S5.4.3.2 (13,344 Newtons) shall be applied simultaneously...

The term "wheelchair occupant restraint" includes both the pelvic and upper torso restraints (see S5.4.4). In your designs, each rear floor anchorage would be required by S5.4.3.2(e) to withstand a combined force of 26,688 Newtons, which includes the lo ad specified for the wheelchair occupant restraint and the load specified for the wheelchair securement device.

The second sentence of S5.4.3.2, which you quoted in your letter, addresses the situation where the wheelchair occupant restraints for more than one wheelchair, e.g. two wheelchairs, are secured to the same floor anchorage. This requirement parallels a r equirement in S5.4.1.3 which addresses the situation where the wheelchair securement devices for more than one wheelchair are secured to the same floor anchorage. Thus, for example, if either of your designs were installed in a bus such that the right r ear anchorage was shared with another identical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (functioning as the left rear anchorage for the second system), that floor anchorage must be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons for each oc cupant restraint system and 13,344 Newtons for each wheelchair securement system, for a total force of 4 x 13,344 Newtons, such force to be applied simultaneously as required by S5.4.3.2(e).

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

ID: 003917rbm

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). You specifically ask whether the telltale requirements of S19.2.2 would prohibit a design that would cause the telltale to flash for five seconds to inform vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You have also requested that the name of your company be kept confidential due to the confidential business nature of the contemplated design. That request is granted. I am pleased to provide a response to your request for interpretation. The design discussed in your letter would not be prohibited by S19.2.2.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults.

Under S19.2.2, any air bag system that uses automatic suppression technology to satisfy the requirements of the standard must have a telltale that illuminates whenever the air bag is suppressed and that does not illuminate whenever the air bag is active, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. S19.2.2 is silent as to how the telltale must operate while the status of the air bag is in transition. Nor does the provision address flashing, as opposed to continuous, illumination. S20.2 tests the air bag suppression system by placing a child restraint, test dummy, or human in the passenger seat, starting the engine and then waiting 10 seconds before determining the status of the air bag.

Under the design contemplated by your company, the required telltale would flash for five seconds to notify the vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You state that you believe this feature will better alert both drivers and front seat passengers when the status of the air bag has changed than simply turning the telltale on or off. Under your design, the five seconds of flashing would be triggered by a change in status from "active" to "inactive" and vice versa. After the five-second flashing period has ended, the telltale would either illuminate steadily or go out, depending on the activation status of the air bag.

Nothing in S19.2.2 prohibits a telltale that flashes to inform vehicle occupants that the air bag has transitioned from an active to inactive status. While S19.2.2(h) prohibits telltale illumination other than when the air bag has been turned off (except during a bulb check), the intention behind S19.2.2(h) is to let vehicle occupants know whether or not their air bag is suppressed without requiring them to discern varying light intensities or other potentially confusing designs. Accordingly, we interpret the standard to permit a system that transitions from continually burning to flashing for a brief period of time, no more than 10 seconds, after the air bag has been reactivated.

Thus, your contemplated design would be permissible under S19.2.2 as long as the telltale only flashes when the air bag is actually suppressed or for a brief period of time after the air bag has been reactivated. Please note that while nothing in the standard would prohibit the telltale from continuously flashing whenever the air bag is suppressed, such designs could be unduly annoying and could lead a vehicle owner to disconnect the telltale. Likewise, an occupant detection system that regularly turned the air bag on and off because the status of the air bag was constantly in transition would be problematic.

Finally, we note that while a flashing design is not prohibited, any vehicle manufacturer choosing to incorporate such a design in its telltale would need to either provide an alternative means of determining whether the air bag is active or suppressed consistent with S19.2.3 or limit the flash to less than 10 seconds. This is because the test procedure set forth in S20.2, and its corollaries in S22.2 and S26.2, require the manufacturer to provide a mechanism that NHTSA can use to determine whether the automatic suppression system is, in fact, able to reliably classify the front passenger seat occupant. For a continually flashing system, the alternative means is necessary to differentiate between a properly functioning system and a problematic system that is continually transitioning between suppression and activation.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/16/03