ID: 2348y

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the meaning of the term "front outboard designated seating position," for the purposes of Standards No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.202) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, you referred to a typical seating arrangement on a small bus your company manufactures. In this seating arrangement, the driver's seating position is located immediately to the rear of the left side of dashboard. There are no other seating positions in the same row as the driver's seat. Instead, a side entrance door and stepwell are to the right of the driver's seat with an unobstructed passage between the driver's seat and the entrance door. To the rear of the driver's seat, there are four rows of passenger seats on each side of the bus, separated by a center aisle that runs the length of the bus. You offered your opinion that the forwardmost passenger seating position on the right side of the bus, which is to the rear of the driver's seating position and the entrance door and stepwell, is not a front outboard seating position for the purposes of Standards No. 202 and 208. Your understanding is correct.

While NHTSA has never specifically defined "front" seating positions, the agency has used that term to refer to the driver's seating position and all other seating positions in the same transverse or lateral row as the driver's seating position. In the small bus described in your letter, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of the bus is not in the same transverse row as the driver's seat; it is to the rear of that row. Therefore, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of your bus would not be a "front" seat for the purposes of Standards No. 202 or 208.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:202#208 d:3/20/90

ID: aiam1594

Dear Mr. Burt: This responds to your June 4 and June 20, 1974, letters asking if parking brake system which locks mechanically after the brake is applied by any emergency air supply acting through the service air brake chamber would comply with Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. The parking brake provisions require in part:; >>>S5.6.3 *Application and holding*. The parking brake shall be applie by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.<<<; The arrangement described would not meet this requirement because th energy source to apply the brakes (the emergency air supply) would be affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system. For example, any failure in the service brake piston diaphragm would cause a loss of air pressure that would in turn 'affect' the energy source that applies the parking brakes. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.; I would like to point out that the provisions of Standard No. 121 d not apply to trailers manufactured before January 1, 1975.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 17885a.nhf

Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr.
The Braun Corporation
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the conversion of vans for the transportation of physically challenged persons. I apologize for the delay in my response. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that the vans you convert come equipped with a driver and right front passenger seat and an on-off switch for the passenger air bag. You explain that these vehicles do not have rear seats and that you install rear seats in all of the vans as part of the conversion. Further, you explain that you permanently remove the right front passenger seat in 90 percent of these vehicles and install a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door in that area. You ask whether in those cases you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Further, you ask whether in the remaining cases, where you leave the right front passenger seat and install rear seats in the vehicles, you can turn the switch to the on position and cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag remains permanently activated. Based on the information supplied with your letter, it appears that the modifications as described in your letter would be consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

From the description you included with your letter, it appears that Braun would be considered an alterer for purposes of certifying compliance with the safety standards. An "alterer" is one who, before the sale of a previously-certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). Alterers must ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires all trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less) to be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. On-off switches for passenger side air bags may be installed in vehicles that either lack forward facing rear seats or which have rear seats that are too small to accommodate a rear facing child restraint. (49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.4.1(a))

With respect to the vehicles you modify, installing rear seats in them alters the vehicles in such a way that they no longer qualify for the on-off switch exclusion. I will now discuss the implications of this for the two types of modifications you make.

A fully operational air bag is required in the vehicles you modify which continue to have a front passenger designated seating position after the modification. You ask whether in those vehicles you may turn the switch to the on position and then cover and permanently seal the bezel so that the air bag remains activated and cannot be shut off with a key. The modification you propose would effectively disable the on-off switch function so that the air bag would operate as if it were originally manufactured without a switch. Such a modification is permitted so long as the bezel is permanently sealed so that it cannot operate as a switch.

A passenger side air bag would not be required in the vehicles you modify by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an air bag is only required if a seating position is there. The Standard also does not prohibit an air bag at that location. You ask whether in these vehicles you can turn the passenger air bag switch to the off position and permanently cover and seal the bezel so that the air bag will remain off permanently. Since NHTSA neither requires nor prohibits an air bag at that position, the proposed modification is permissable provided it does not adversely affect the operation of the driver side air bag. We suggest that you contact the original equipment manufacturer to ensure that you perform the modifications safely.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.2/4/99

ID: nht81-1.9

DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1981

FROM: J. KAWANO -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE-TOYOTA

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 105-75

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, MAY 24, 1974 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREGORY, AND MAY 27, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO JONES

TEXT: Toyota is currently considering a new type of brake reservoir, as shown in Fig. 1, in accordance with your letter enclosed herewith as Attachment #1.

We request clarification of our interpretation of @5.4.2 & 5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 105-75, concerning this type of brake reservoir.

S5.4.2 reads as follows:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or for other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

As far as our new type of brake reservoir is concerned, we recognize that if the following three conditions were satisfied, these reservoirs would conform to S5.4.2. Is this interpretation correct?

i) W + X + Y > C + D + E *

ii) X > A

iii) Y > B

* (Note: A vehicle equipped with this type of reservoir can be expressed as W+X+Y>C+D, since E is equivalent to zero.)

W; common capacity for fluid of front brake, rear brake & clutch as hatching part in Fig. 1

X; a compartment capacity for front brake fluid Y; a compartment capacity for rear brake fluid

A; volume displaced by front master cylinder during a full stroke of position

B; volume displaced by rear master cylinder during a full stroke of position

C; front capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

D; rear capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

E; clutch capacity of fluid when all cylinder pistons serviced by the reservoirs from a new lining, fully retracted position to fully worn, fully applied position

In accordance with the aforementioned interpretation, we recognize that if the warning level is not less than the level of 1/4 (W+X+Y), S5.3.1 would be satisfied. This "W" is the same volume as the "W" in expression i) of inequality. Is this interpretation correct? The main point in question is whether the "W" in expression i) of inequality can be considered the capacity in a case where the overall compartment system -- clutch included -- has not failed. We illustrate such a case in te hatching segment of Fig. 1.

We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. If you should have any comments or questions, please contact Mr. M. Mori, a member of my staff, who can be reached at: (201) 865-2019. Thank you.

Enclosure.

Fig. 1. Warning level.

ID: aiam4219

Dear Mr. Meeker: This responds to your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich of ou Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you noted that Collier-Keyworth now sells a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring- loaded. A movable shield that is not spring loaded will remain in position in front of the child seat occupant, even if the crotch strap attached to the shield is not properly fastened. You stated that your company would like to build a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded, and stated your opinion that shields need not be spring-loaded to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.; Your opinion is correct if read narrowly, because no provision o Standard No. 213 requires or ever has required movable shields on child restraints to be spring-loaded. However, if a child restraint incorporates a movable shield, section S.6.1.2.1.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that the child restraint must be certified as complying with test configuration II. In test configuration II, the child restraint is subjected to a 20 mile per hour frontal crash. Section S6.1.2.3.1(c) provides that none of the child restraint belts are to be attached during this test, *unless* the belts are an integral part of the movable shield. Because of this requirement and the agency's interpretations thereof, child restraints have generally incorporated spring-loaded movable shields. This agency discussed these provisions and their applicability to the Collier-Keyworth non-spring-loaded shields at length in a July 3, 1985, letter to Mr. Frederick Locker. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information.; If you have any further questions about this subject after reviewin the letter to Mr. Locker, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986, concerning the implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You expressed concern about the possible disconnection of detachable automatic belts by vehicle dealers and asked how the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would apply to such a situation.

As you pointed out, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative items of safety equipment. The section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

In interpreting section 108(a)(2)(A), the agency has said that commercial businesses are prohibited from knowingly removing, altering or degrading an item of safety equipment required by our standards. Thus, if a commercial business were to remove an automatic belt, it would be a clear violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). However, that situation is quite different from a commercial business demonstrating an aspect of performance required by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

For some time, the agency has recognized that it is important to require automatic belts to have a mechanism to permit the release of the belt after a crash. Therefore, on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency adopted a provision in Standard No. 208 which requires all automatic belt systems to incorporate an emergency release mechanism. The agency has also recognized that it is important for consumers to know how such systems operate. The agency has fully expected vehicle dealers and others to play a helpful role in providing that information to the consumer. For example, in November (Illegible Word) NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to permit the use of alternative types of emergency releases in automatic belts. In adopting that amendment, the agency emphasized that it did not believe that "the use of alternative release mechanisms will cause serious occupant egress problems if manufacturers take precautions to instruct vehicle owners how the systems work through the owner's manual and through their dealers." (43 FR 52494)

In addition to demonstrating how to get out of the automatic safety belt in an emergency, dealers will also have to show their customers how to gain access to the center seating position in a bench seat car equipped with automatic safety belts. Thus, given the need to educate the public about how the automatic restraint system functions, we do not consider it to be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) for a dealer to unbuckle or help consumers unbuckle their automatic safety belts. Hence, we cannot issue the legal interpretation you requested. We would expect that when dealers explain how an automatic belt system operates, they will also emphasize the important safety benefits of the automatic belts.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

In just six months, the auto industry must implement the single most important safety standard ever issued by the federal government -- the passive restraint requirement of FMVSS 208. How the industry carries out implementation will in large part determine the ultimate effectiveness of the standard. If the manufacturers make a good faith effort to comply with well-designed passive restraint systems, then at least 9,000 lives will be saved and 100,000 serious injuries prevented each year after full implementation.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, will attempt to undermine this lifesaving standard by installing cumbersome automatic seat belts with window shade retractors that can be detached so easily they will encourage disconnection by dealers and consumers. [The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor conveniently rolling the loose belt up into the retractor.] GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed. Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given the fact that a smaller auto manufacturer, Volkswagen, has sold for the past ten years an automatic belt that is so easy to use that consumers don't want to disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard rider" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108 (a) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed . . . in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The Center believes this clearly prohibits dealers from unbuckling or helping consumers to unbuckle their automatic seat belts. If they do so, they are liable for a $ 1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act. Since the GM hard rider automatic belts are so cumbersome yet easy to disconnect, many GM dealers are likely to disconnect the automatic belts to better sell the cars in view of the competition from other manufacturers who have opted for easy rider automatic belts.

Accordingly, the Center petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an interpretive legal opinion prior to the beginning of the 1987 model year that it is illegal for dealers to disconnect or help consumers to disconnect automatic belts under Section 108 of the Act and that violating dealers are subject to a $ 1,000 per vehicle fine.

Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director

cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: Higuchi.1

Mr. Kazuo Higuchi
TK Holdings, Inc. (Takata)
601 13^th Street, NW, Suite 350 South
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your October 24, 2005, letter in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements for emergency-locking retractors (ELRs) under paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Specifically, you asked whether, for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 209, a vehicle acceleration-sensitive ELR, after being rotated to the locking point (i.e. , some angle more than 15 degrees), must then be rotated back to determine whether the ELR unlocks at an angle greater than 15 degrees from its initial orientation in the vehicle?The answer to your question is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

As your letter points out, the agency published a final rule on August 22, 2005, which amended FMVSS No. 209 by redefining the requirements and establishing a new test methodology for ELRs (70 FR 48883). Under paragraph S4.3, Requirements for hardware, FMVSS No. 209 sets performance requirements for seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February 22, 2007 (and ones produced by manufacturers opting for early compliance). Among those requirements, the standard states that for an ELR sensitive to vehicle acceleration installed as part of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)(2) under zero acceleration loading, such ELR shall "not lock when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle" (see S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E)).

The purpose of the requirement in S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E) is to prevent "nuisance locking" in situations where the vehicle experiences a minor change in orientation from its normal orientation on a flat roadway (e.g. , traveling on a moderate incline, hitting a pothole). However, once the ELR experiences a sufficient change in orientation, as specified in Standard No. 209, the retractor must lock. The standard contains no corollary provision for unlocking of the vehicle acceleration-sensitive ELR, either in the standards performance requirements or test procedures.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:209
d.1/24/06

ID: aiam3413

Dear Mr. Sornson: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.; The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system canno activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.; The agency's position has not changed since the response to America Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 77-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 22, 1977, letter asking whether a restraining barrier in front of a seat with a back higher than that required in S5.1.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back.

The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard. That section states that: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. Therefore, a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard No. 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

February 22, 1977

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as applied to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

Must the perimeter of a barrier located in front of a seat having a back higher than that required by Section S5.1.2 coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: aiam1364

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This responds to your December 17, 1973, letter to the Administrator o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asking whether a 'sling' attachment of the upper end of an upper torso restraint to the roof rail is subject to Standard 210's requirements for seat belt anchorage location.; The ring, webbing, and attachment hardware you describe functio together as a seat belt anchorage and as such are subject to the appropriate strength and location requirements of Standard 210. Because the location requirement of S4.3.2 is intended to strictly limit the placement of the fixed point from which a belt passes across an occupant's torso, and because the flexible portion of your sling anchorage duplicates the uninterrupted deployment of an upper torso restraint, only the fixed portion of such a sling anchorage would be subject to S4.3.2's location requirement.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel