ID: aiam2988

Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your March 2, 1979, letter concerning the definitio of the vehicle sub-classification, 'convertible.' Your letter included several Figures of various vehicle designs and asked whether each would be considered a 'convertible' by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.; While our regulations do not include a formal definition o 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof' or a 'Hurst hatch roof' do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location (April 21, 1976, letter of interpretation enclosed). This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the 'A' and 'B' pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.; Given this interpretation, only the Fiat X-19 vehicle desig illustrated in your Figure 5 would qualify as a 'convertible.' Each vehicle design in your other illustrations (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) include fixed, rigid structural components joining the 'A' and 'B' pillar sections of the vehicles and, therefore, would not be classified as convertibles. Likewise, the designs would not be considered 'open-body type vehicles' (49 CFR 571.3) for the same reason, the structural member, whether hidden or not, would be considered part of the vehicle top. also, I would point out that the 'open-body vehicle' designation generally refers to multi-purpose passenger vehicles such as 'Jeeps' or 'dune buggies.'; I hope this clarification is responsive to your inquiry. If you hav any further questions please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3897

Dear Mr. Shimizu: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1984, concerning th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You noted that section S4.1(e) of the standard provides that 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or *buckles* readily accessible to the occupant....' [Emphasis added.] You asked whether the standard would permit a seat belt assembly with two buckles as shown in the schematic attached to your letter. The answer is that while Standard No. 209 would permit such an assembly, whether such an assembly can be installed in a particular vehicle is determined by Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protectio of occupants in a crash. Section S4.1.2.3.1 provides that Type 2 lap and shoulder belt systems used in passenger cars must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. Likewise, S4.2.2 provides that certain trucks and buses with Type 2 belts must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. The belt system you illustrated in your diagram consists of one continuous loop of webbing which serves as both the lap and shoulder belt. However, your design provides a separate buckle for the shoulder anchorage and thus an occupant could release the shoulder buckle and use the belt solely as a lap belt. Thus, we would not consider your design to have a nondetachable shoulder belt.; In addition, section S7.2 of the standard sets requirements for th latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism used in those vehicles must release at a single point. Therefore, a two buckle system could not be used in those vehicles.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1370

Dear Mr. Higgins: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, asking whethe motor vehicle new or used car dealers are prohibited from selling vehicles mounted on regrooved or recapped tires. You indicated in a phone conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office that your concern is with motor vehicles generally, and not passenger cars alone.; New passenger cars are required to be sold with tires meeting th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.110). New vehicles other than passenger cars are not presently required by NHTSA regulations to be sold with particular tires, but requirements in this regard have been proposed (36 F.R. 14273, August 3, 1971).; This agency has no requirements regarding the sale of used moto vehicles equipped with recapped or retreaded tires. However, buses subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations are prohibited from operating with recapped, retreaded, or regrooved tires on their front wheels (49 CFR S 393.75(d)).; Trucks and truck tractors subject to Motor Carrier Safety requirement may not be operated with regrooved tires on the front wheels which have a load carrying capacity equal to or greater than that of 8.25-20 8 ply-rating tires (49 CFR 393.75(e)). For more inforamtion regarding the applicability of these requirements you should contact, Regualtions Division Bureau of Motor carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.; The sale of regrooved tires is subject to regulations issued by thi agency (49 CFR Part 569). the recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals (*NAMBO* v. *Brinegar*, D.C. Dir., Case No. 71-1268, July 26, 1973) appears to allow the sale of regrooved tires under these regulations in certain circumstances. We believe the opinion is unclear in this regard, and as a result we have determined to seek additional judicial review to further clarify the matter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3448

Dear Mr. Maugh: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of m staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.; Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements fo the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a 'console support structure' which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.; Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. Th phrase 'bears upon the seat frame' as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.; We note that the console support frame could easily have been attache to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.; The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was t enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.; Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4681

"Dear Ms. Conrad: This responds to your letter asking what lega obligations are imposed on car dealers to replace air bags on used vehicles accepted as trade-ins. Your letter explained that your dealership has received, as a trade-in, a 1989 car that had a driver-side air bag as original equipment. According to your letter, the car had been in a crash and the air bag was deployed. Hence, when this car was taken in trade by your dealership, its air bag was not functional. You asked whether any law requires you to replace the deployed air bag with a new air bag before selling the car. In response to your question, we can advise you as follows: (1) Federal law does not require a car dealer to replace a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, (2) a dealer may be required by State law to replace that equipment, or be liable for failure to do so, and (3) our agency strongly encourages dealers to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. We will first address the Federal legal issues, since our agency administers the Federal vehicle safety law. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The requirement for automatic crash protection was phased-in for passenger cars, beginning with 1987 model year new cars. That phase-in is now completed, and all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Because of this statutory requirement, your dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag if you know that the air bag has been deployed. However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' In other words, once the 1989 Chrysler LeBaron described in your letter was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. In the case of passenger cars equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags, except as needed to make repairs to the car. When any such repairs are completed, the car must be returned to the customer with the air bag capable of functioning at least as well as it was able to do when the car was received by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, if your dealership purchases a used car that was originally equipped with an air bag pursuant to Standard No. 208, and the air bag was deployed before your dealership took possession of the car, Federal law does not require your dealership to replace the deployed air bag with a functioning air bag before you resell the car. Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, dealers may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. You should be aware that the individual States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning when the used vehicles are sold. You may wish to contact the State of Illinois to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations that would apply in these circumstances. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Illinois regarding potential liability in tort for your dealership in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. The potential for finding a car dealer liable may be greater when that dealer sells a used vehicle without one of the originally-installed safety systems intact and functional. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy recommendation that dealers always replace air bags following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. Indeed, we have long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash, including the safety belts and brakes, as well as the air bag systems now being installed in passenger cars. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Those vehicles are designed so that the air bag will always work, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to the purchaser of the used car described in your letter -- in the vehicle owner's manual, from the carmaker and insurance companies, and from NHTSA and other safety groups -- would identify the car as one equipped with a driver-side air bag. The purchaser may well expect a used car to provide the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. In short, from the standpoints of auto safety, dealer risk management, consumer protection, customer relations, and good business practices, NHTSA strongly advocates the replacment of deployed air bags. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4018

Dear Mr. Friberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985 for a determination that a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard sho the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state '185/65R15' but the correct information is '185/70R15.' However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards 'to owners of all affected vehicles.'; By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy th noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.; The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and d not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.; Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 4 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 573 report. Part 573 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 573 quarterly reports.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4178

Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretatio of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.; Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle (sic) that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.; You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, fo purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1 (sic); As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288) one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag- restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4803

"Dear Mr. Pugh: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called 'van conversions.' You first asked whether a 'van conversion' would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called 'vans' may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR 571.3) for the purposes of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular 'van.' Most cargo vans are classified as 'trucks' under our safety standards, because those vehicles are 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Most passenger vans are classified as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles,' because they do not meet the definition of a 'truck', but are 'constructed on a truck chassis.' Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are classified as 'buses,' because they are 'designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a 'passenger car,' because it was 'designed for carrying 10 persons or less.' Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conversion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested. You next asked on what date safety belts were required in 'van conversions,' what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as 'van conversions' for the purposes of our safety standards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Since September l, l989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants. Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September l, l99l vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions. If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 571.208--Center seat--Glickenhaus--19-1007

Mr. Jesse Glickenhaus

Managing Director

Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus LLC

8 Kendall Avenue

Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591

Dear Mr. Glickenhaus:

This responds to your March 25, 2019 request for interpretation asking how the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208; Occupant crash protection, apply to a passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) with centrally located front seating positions.  Specifically, you ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for the central front seat(s) if they are not “outboard designated seating positions” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).  As we explain below, based on the information and representations provided in your request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seat(s) in these vehicles.    

Description of your vehicle designs and request for interpretation

 Your request concerns two different vehicle designs.  The first is a passenger car with the driver’s seat located at or near the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.  You state that the driver’s seat will not meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).[1]  In the illustrations in your letter, the driver’s seat is depicted as the only front seat; there are two rear seats.  You state that the images accurately reflect the placement of the front driver’s seat, but that the shape and final placement of the rear passenger seats are not finalized.  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for the driver’s seat. 

The second vehicle you describe is an MPV.[2]  In a subsequent conversation with my staff, you indicated that this vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 8,500 pounds (lb) (and/or an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb.  The MPV has a driver and front passenger seat, both of which are centrally located.  The accompanying illustrations also depict two rear seating positions.  You state that neither the driver’s seat nor the front passenger seat will meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position.”  You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for either of these seating positions.    

Requirements under FMVSS No. 208 for the front seats in these vehicles

FMVSS No. 208 sets out vehicle-level occupant protection requirements.  These include requirements or compliance options for seat belts, air bags, frontal crash tests, and static air bag tests. 

Passenger Cars

Whether or not the passenger car you describe is required to have a front air bag for the driver’s seat depends on whether that seat is an “outboard designated seating position.”  FMVSS No. 208 requires that each “[front] outboard designated seating position” be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt[3] and an air bag and certified to meet advanced air bag requirements.[4]  For example, passenger cars are required to certify, among other things, that they will meet injury criteria specifications when subject to a rigid barrier belted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy,[5] but this requirement applies only to “each front outboard designated seating position[.]”[6]  We note that the standard is not completely consistent in using the term “front outboard designated seating position” to apply the advanced air bag requirements; the requirements referring to an out-of-position 5th percentile female dummy are specified in terms of the “driver position.”[7]  However, this “driver position” reference is most sensibly understood as applying to the driver’s side front outboard designated seating, consistent with the framework specified in the rest of the standard.[8]  If the front seat is not an “outboard designated seating position” then it is required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.[9]

MPVs with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb (or with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb

FMVSS No. 208 (in S4.2.3 and S4.1.2) specifies several different compliance options for front seats in MPVs in this weight class.  These vehicles are not required to have air bags, and may provide protection with only a seat belt.[10] 

Discussion

Based on the information and representations provided in your interpretation request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seats in the vehicles you describe.[11]  If the centrally-located driver’s seat in your passenger car is not an outboard designated seating position, FMVSS No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, and not an air bag.  With respect to MPVs in the referenced weight class, FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for any front seats.  For example, the compliance option at S4.1.2.3 specifies only a belt and a seat belt warning for both front outboard and center seats.  More specifically, if the centrally-located driver’s and front passenger seats in the MPV are not outboard designated seating positions, then S4.2.3 requires that they be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 belt and, depending on the compliance option selected, a seat belt warning system.

In your letter, you indicate that you have “every intention of installing airbags [sic] as soon as possible” in your vehicles.  NHTSA strongly encourages that an air bag be provided for the driver’s designated seating position.  In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in the driver's seating position being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is rarely used.  However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position.  Thus, we support your intention to install air bags in future models. 

This interpretation is limited to the facts and representations stated in your request.  In particular, this response assumes that the centrally-located front seat(s) are not “outboard designated seating position(s)” as defined in § 571.3(b) and that the rear seats depicted in the illustrations of the vehicles would in fact be classified as rear seats (and not front seats) under our regulations.  We also note that this letter is limited to answering your question about FMVSS No. 208.  Other FMVSS might necessitate use of air bag technologies, e.g., FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” which manufacturers typically meet by way of ejection mitigation side curtain air bags.  It would be your responsibility as a vehicle manufacturer to certify that your vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including those not discussed in this letter. 

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/30/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 209

[1] “Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion” (emphasis in original).

[2] An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.”  § 571.3(b).

[3] S4.1.5.1(a)(3).  A Type 1 seat belt is a lap belt, and a Type 2 seat belt is a combination lap/shoulder belt.  FMVSS 209; Seat belt assemblies, S3.

[4] See S14 (“Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service[]”) and S4.1.5.4 (“Each passenger car certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.”).  See also the advanced air bag requirements specified in S14 through S29. 

[5] S14.4 and S14.5.1(b).

[6] S14.5.1(b).

[7] See S25.1-25.4.

[8] Cf. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 2508(a)(1), 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (requiring the Department of Transportation to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require air bags at the “front outboard designated seating positions” in passenger cars and trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded weight of 5,500 lb or less).

[9] S4.1.5.1(a)(2).

[10] See S4.1.2.3 (option of equipping the front outboard seats with Type 2 belts and a belt warning system, and any center front seat with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt and a belt warning system).

[11] See also Letter from Philip Recht, Chief Counsel, to Trevor Buttle, McLaren Cars Limited (Oct. 31, 1994) (opining that a driver’s seat located at least 12 inches from the side of the vehicle is not an “outboard designated seating position”).

ID: aiam4877

"Dear Mr. Mamakas: This responds to your letter asking what Federa standards apply to the 'repair' of deployed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The compliance testing of vehicles to the requirement of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria (as measured on a test dummy) when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Automatic crash protection will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year. Note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which repaired air bags must comply. The only Federal requirement that might affect your planned operation would be the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, air bags are a 'device or element of design' installed in passenger cars in compliance with Standard No. 208. Hence, your repair business would violate Federal law if it were to remove, deploy, disable, or otherwise 'render inoperative' air bags installed in passenger cars. However, your letter gives no indication that your company intends to perform repairs or other operations on air bags that have not yet deployed. Instead, your letter asks only about performing repairs on air bags that have already deployed. Deployed air bags have been 'rendered inoperative' by the forces that caused deployment, not by anything a repair business does after that deployment. Thus, it seems unlikely that any repairs your company performs on deployed air bags would violate the 'render inoperative' section of Federal law. Although there is no Federal law prohibiting the sort of repairs you asked about, your planned 'repair' of deployed air bags gives rise to a host of safety concerns. You will need to contact the manufacturer of each vehicle on which you repair an air bag to learn the exact formula and amount of gas generant in the inflator canister for each air bag. This would be necessary to ensure that the 'repaired' air bag will inflate at the time and in the manner intended by the original manufacturer. Additionally, you will need to replace the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Again, you will need to contact the vehicle manufacturer to obtain specifications for the performance of these electronic components. You will also need to refold and lubricate the fabric of the air bag in the same manner as the original air bag. If you fail to exactly duplicate the equipment and procedures used in the original air bag, your company could significantly reduce or even eliminate the protection that would have been provided by the original air bag. This, in turn, could expose your company to substantial liability under State laws for such repairs. You may wish to consult a private attorney for more information in this regard. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";