ID: aiam1572

Dear Mr. Case: This responds to your June 13, 1974, request for approval of you 'park-lock' device under the parking brake system requirements of Standard No. 121 *Air brake systems*, 49 CFR S571.121. After a trailer's emergency air supply applies the brakes through the service brake chamber in response to a low service brake air supply, your device locks the brakes in the applied position.; The relevant provision of the standard states: >>>S5.6.3 *Application and holding*. The parking brakes shall b applied 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 brake. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.; Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake syste components. Therefore we neither approve nor disapprove the use of particular components like the 'park-lock' device. It may be used in any parking brake system which meets the requirements of the standard.; I would like to point out that the standard becomes effective Januar 1, 1975, for trailers, and that it does not regulate air brake systems on trailers manufactured before that date.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 86-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Muirhead

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1986 to William Smith of this agency, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering as an item of original and aftermarket equipment. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and supported by a fabricated metal frame and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. According to your description, the seat would have safety belts. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210. However, the safety belts provided with the seat would have to comply with Standard No. 209.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing those responsibilities is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

August 22, 1986

MR. SMITH -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA Dear Sir:

After having reviewed the various motor vehicle safety standards sent to my attention from your good office. I have concluded that our particular Seating System falls outside the standards regulating inboard multi-purpose passenger vehicle seating.

I am therefore enclosing rough sketches of the seating system our company is developing for both an original and after equipment market. I trust these sketches will enable you to identify any Federal Safety Standards which may be or become applicable to a seating system of this nature.

Thanking you in advance for your attention and kind consideration, I am

Respectfully,

Scott Muirhead -- New Project Manager

Enclosures:

[Graphics omitted]

ID: aiam0023

Dear Mr. Busby: Thank you for your letter of April 26, 1967, concerning th interpretation of Safety Standard Number 210.; Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard Number 208, specifies that the Type 2 sea belt anchorage shall be installed in each outboard passenger seat position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area. Therefore, the rear seat is not included in this area and no Type 2 belt assembly is required. A copy of the Federal Register published February 3, 1967, is enclosed for your information.; With regard to your comments on *Standard Number 209* and on th provision of Section 108(b)(3) of the Act, please be advised that we anticipate the promulgation of joint regulations with the Secretary of the Treasury, permitting the importation of vehicles upon appropriate assurance that they will be brought into conformity with all applicable Federal standards prior to sale. These regulations or related regulations will prescribe the proper means of certifying such nonconforming vehicles in order to insure their admission through United States Customs.; Sincerely yours, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: aiam2804

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your March 10, 1978, letter asking whether you ca consider a 39-inch bench-type seat in a bus as a two passenger seat when the bus is designed for adult transportation. You state in your letter that it would be possible for three 5th percentile females to sit in a seat of that width.; The establishment of designated seating positions in buses and othe vehicles is done by the manufacturer of the vehicles. A manufacturer is accorded some discretion in making this determination, however, he is subject to certain limitations. For example, a manufacturer cannot understate the designated seating positions to such an extent that the vehicle is likely to carry more people than its stated capacity. In other words a manufacturer must make a good faith determination of the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles. Applying this test to a 39-inch bench seat used in buses transporting adults, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider it erroneous to consider these seats as two-passenger seats, because it would be extremely uncomfortable if not impossible to seat 3 adults in those seats.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 11241

Mr. Richard P. Cuvala
Trix Mfg. Co. Inc.
500 W. Irving Pk. Rd.
Bensenville, IL 60106

Dear Mr. Cuvala:

This responds to your letter of September 10, 1995, concerning "conference and display vehicles" you have been asked to manufacture for a client. The vehicles used are cargo vans with a gross vehicle weight rating of 9200 pounds. You convert the cargo area of the van to a product display and conference area. Your letter contained an illustration of the vehicle, indicating an L-shaped seating area behind the driver and front passenger seats. Your letter states that this area is not intended for transport of people. You asked whether such a vehicle must comply with "seating and occupant orientation and restraint directives." As explained below, the seats in such a vehicle would have to comply with federal standards on seats and seat belts if the modification is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards prior to their sale or import. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

Conversion Prior to Sale

Your letter does not state whether the conversion of the cargo area of these vehicles is done before or after the first retail sale of the vehicles. Prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle, the vehicle is considered to be "new." If the conversion is done prior to the first retail sale, your company would be considered an "alterer" under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR '567.7).

The seats in a new vehicle must comply with federal regulations if they are "designated seating positions." A "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

While you indicate that the vehicles are not intended to transport people except in the front seats, the design of the seating area is similar to other vehicle seats. Therefore, it appears from their design that these seats are likely to be used and are therefore designated seating positions.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to seats in these vehicles: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302).

Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain limited exceptions not relevant to your conversion, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of their failure in a crash. Standard No. 207 does not require a specific orientation for seats. However, some of the requirements are different for side- and rear-facing seats like those illustrated in your attachment.

Standard No. 208 specifies seat belt requirements for seating positions in vehicles. For the seats in the rear of your vehicles, Standard No. 208 would require lap belts at each designated seating position. Standard No. 210 specifies performance requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the interior of motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 would affect not only the seats, but also installation of other materials in these vehicles.

Standard No. 209 applies to 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. Thus, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209. If you do not manufacture the seat belts yourself, you should install only belts certified by their manufacturer. This is true regardless of whether the conversion occurs before or after the first sale of the vehicle.

Conversion After Sale

If the conversion is done on a used motor vehicle, you do not have to certify that the vehicle complies with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302. However, 49 USC '30122 provides, in pertinent part:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, you could not convert these vehicles if the conversion affected a device or element of design, installed prior to sale, so as to cause the vehicles to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:207#208#209#210#302 d:12/8/95

ID: nht88-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: ROBERT DAUGHERTY -- QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER SAFETY REHAB SUNRISE MEDICAL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- N H T S A

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/06/88 TO ROBERT DAUGHERTY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 07/31/87 TO RICHARD J. MAHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES;

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Jones:

Safety Rehab Systems, Inc. (SRS) manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Our equipment is not only a means of transportation for these children, but also a positioning system.

Therapeutist throughout the country are starting to position these children as soon as possible, therefore a lot of kids are being transported to and from institutions for therapy by private car and school buses. I have included some literature for a better understanding of our product lines.

Safety Rehab believes that FMVS213 does not apply to durable medical products, (wheelchairs, positioning systems). Is this correct?

Safety Rehab's interest is to build safe equipment for transporting so all our equipment is crash tested at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and meets the head and knee excursion limits of 213.

Are there any transportation standards for handicapped children? Are there any standards for tie-down systems for school buses concerning handicapped children? Some schools equip buses with forward facing tie-downs and some tie-downs are side facing .

I would appreciate any information dealing with transporting the handicapped that you can provide.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam3176

Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of th warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.; Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system tha activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position (condition 'a'), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition 'a' exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition 'b'). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition 'a' alone exists.; The functioning of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists i not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light to function when condition 'a' existed and the audible signal when both conditions 'a' and 'b' existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition 'a' only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition 'b'.; Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permi operation of the audible signal when condition 'a' only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.; In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed bel use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my 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 for 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. The 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 attached 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 to 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

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: nht81-1.45

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. M. Tobias and Associated, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 17 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Robert A. Langindorf Joseph M. Tobias and Associates, Ltd. Suite 911 100 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60602

Dear Mr. Langindorf:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Bob Nelson of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You asked several questions regarding Safety Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection, in relation to a van vehicle equipped to secure wheelchairs. Specifically, you asked whether spaces on the vehicle's floor suitable for locking wheel chairs in the vehicle would be considered "designated seating positions" for which seat belt assemblies must be supplied.

A van vehicle designed to carry passengers rather than cargo would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This would include a medicar van for disabled persons in wheelchairs. As a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a 1975 or 1976 van would have to comply with the seat belt requirements of paragraph S4.2 of Safety Standard No. 208. This means that the vehicle manufacturer would have to install seat belts for each "designated seating position" in the van. In 49 CFR 571.3 "designated seating position" is defined, in part, as:

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats..."

You can see that this definition encompasses only seats that are installed as a permanent part of the overall vehicle structure, e.g., the driver's seat in the van and any other permanent passenger seats that are bolted to the floor of the vehicle. The definition would not include spaces on the floor suitable for securing wheelchairs. Therefore, these spaces would not be required to have seat belts under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. Only the van's driver's seat and permanent passenger seats would be required to have belts.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 15, 1980

Mr. Bob Nelson NHTSA 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Nelson:

I was referred to you or Mr. Guy Hunter by Ms. Elizabeth Lindahl of the Regional Administrator, NHTSA office in Chicago Heights, Illinois. She told me you would be better able to handle some interpretations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular seatbelts.

In reference to seatbelts, I have also talked to Mr. Madison Post of the Illinois Department of Transportation. My Questions to both Mr. Post and Ms. Lindahl have dealt with Multi Passenger Vehicles and Trucks, S4.2 in Standard No. 208 and the safety belts requirements.

Mr. Post has informed me that a medicar van would be a multipurpose vehicle in S4.2. (See enclosed letter)

Ms. Lindahl said the member of designated positions is on the metal plate on the door as put their by the manufacturer.

The questions are as follows:

1) Would a multipurpose vehicle include a medicar van for disabled people in wheelchairs, S4.2?

2) Would S54.2 or any other section cover this medicar van made in 1975 or 1976?

3) In S4.2.2(a) and S4.2.1.2(b) would "designated seating position" or "outboard designated seating position" include a space on the floor designated for wheelchairs to be locked in, so as to require either a seat safety belt or passive protection system?

4) Is a medicar van sold new by a Dodge dealer, who designs the van so as to accommodate persons in wheelchairs, subject to safety belt requirements in light of S108 in Public Law 89-563--15 USC 1381, et seq (whereas rules apply to a wheelchair or item of equipment up to its first purchase for purposes other than resale)?

I would appreciate the answers to these questions according to either NHTSA or your interpretation. If not, please either pass this letter along to someone who can answer them or tell me whom to contact.

I thank you for your cooperation in all of the foregoing.

Yours truly,

FOR JOSEPH M. TOBIAS & ASSOCIATES

RAL:idt

Enclosure

November 26, 1980

Robert A. Langendorf Suite 911 100 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, Illinois 60602

Dear Mr. Langendorf:

You inquired about application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208, Section 4.2, to a "medicar van" and seat belt requirements for such a "van".

Under federal definitions and rules a motor vehicle, including a "van", constructed on a truck chassis and designed or altered to carry 10 persons or less (as opposed to cargo, freight, equipment, etc.) is a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV--49 CFR 571.3). It must be classified MPV and must conform to Section 4.2 and other applicable FMVSS (49 CFR 567).

In general, the FMVSS and related rules apply to a vehicle or item of equipment up to its first purchase for purposes other than resale (Section 108 in Public Law 89-563--15 USC 1351, et seq).

I suggest you contact officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for more specific answers to your detail questions:

Regional Administrator, NHTSA Chief Counsel 1010 Dixie Highway NHTSA Chicago Heights, IL 60411 Washington, D.C. 20590 312/756-1950 Phone Safety Hot Line 800/424-9373

Michael Finkelstein Administrator for Rule Making NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590 Phone Safety Hot Line 800/424-9373

Under current interpretations of State definitions every 1st division motor vehicle, (such as a passenger car, MPV, or "van" that is not a taxicab) becomes a bus if used for transportation of persons for compensation even though it seats 10 persons or less (IVC 1-107). The type of compensation is not restricted. The transformation to bus occurs with regular (not occasional or rare) acceptance of any type of equivalent or recompensive action or payment i.e., service or help "in kind", "favors in return", money or other fare, emolument, fee, aid, grant, or other fund(s) stemming from private or government (federal, state, or local) person or entity, vehicle in "car pool", etc. Many first division buses are operated in Illinois (IVC 1-217).

State law requires two sets of seat belts for the front seat of a first division vehicle (IVC 12-501). Of course, where the front seat provides seating for only one person, i.e. driver, only one set is needed. Seat belt installations that meet FMVSS 208 and other standards referred to therein are acceptable, since the FMVSS preempts State standards (Sec. 103, PL 89-563--15 USC 1381, et seq).

Thank you for asking about seat belt requirements.

Sincerely,

Madison Post Standards Engineer Bureau of Safety Operations

MP:mp

cc: L. Wort S. England

ID: nht88-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/17/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER, OCC - 1043

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

Specifically, you asked about a safety belt installation at the driver's seat of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. A customer of yours designed a lap/shoulder belt system with a continuous webbing feature and with a floor-mounted automatic locking retractor (ALR) for the belt system. Your company was concerned that this proposed design would not comply with the requirements of S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209, which limit the extent to which ALR's can move between locking positions and the retraction force that can be exerted by ALR's. Additionally, your letter stated that sections S4.1.2.3, S4.2.2, and S7.1 of Standard No. 208, "though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal u pper torso restriction."

To address these concerns, you made two modifications to the customer's proposed design. The first modification was to sew the latchplate to the webbing to convert the continuous webbing into a separate lap belt and upper torso restraint. The second mo dification was to place a manual adjusting device on the upper torso restraint. You asked for an opinion on these modifications.

The requirements for safety belts on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990, with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds are set forth in section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in s ection S4.4.1 for buses. Both of these sections require that the driver's seating position in heavy vehicles be equipped with a complete automatic protection system or with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. The re quirements for safety belts on heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are set forth in section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208

for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in section S4.4.1 for buses. These heavy vehicles must either have a complete automatic protection system at the driver's seating position or be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly t hat conforms to Standard No. 209, S7.2 of Standard No. 208, and include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor that satisfies some additional performance requirements.

Your customer has chosen to comply with Standard No. 208 by installing a belt system at the driver's seating position. Therefore, the vehicles in question would comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 208 if the belt assembly complies wi th the requirements of S4.3.1 or S4.4.1, if the vehicles are manufactured before September 1, 1990, or with the requirements of S4.3.2 or S4.4.2, if the vehicles are manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Your letter does not provide sufficient inf ormation for us to offer any opinion on whether your customer's design or your design would comply with S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209, either may be installed at the driver's seating position in vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209 and the additional requirements set forth in S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 of Standard No. 208, either may be installed at the d river's seating position in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

You also referred to an implied agency intent of minimal upper torso restriction by the belt assemblies in heavy vehicles. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply regarding that purpose. If those requirements do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of that purpos e, then to that extent, that aspect is not part of the standard, even if NHTSA intended it to be part of the standard. Any aspect of performance that is not set forth in the requirements of the standard is, therefore, not relevant to determining whether the vehicles or equipment comply with the performance requirements that are set forth in the standard.

We certainly appreciate your efforts to design a comfortable lap/shoulder belt system for these vehicles, because more comfortable belt systems should increase belt use. Increased use, in turn, helps prevent deaths and/or serious injuries.

Sincerely,