ID: nht76-5.11

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. G. Milby

COPYEE: TRUCK BODY AND EQUIP. ASSOC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, question whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a "seat guard" at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings.

The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured on or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exists from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallele-piped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved.

The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is to assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exists should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1.

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

@ 103

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

It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington's requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5 4.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 20, 1976

Thomas Herlihy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

It has been our practice to furnish safety chains with snaps on both ends across side emergency doors as standard equipment per the enclosed photograph. Chains are optional equipment for rear emergency doors. The State of Washington plans to require the following on school buses:

"Seats adjacent to side emergency doors, if so positioned, shall have a seat guard of adequate size to prevent student falling from bus should emergency door be accidentally opened."

Will the subject safety chains or seat guards for either side or rear emergency doors be legal for school buses after October 26, 1976?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.12

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anshelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1976, question whether the windows of "recreational vehicles" qualify as "secondary means of egress" and what Federal requirements would apply to them if they do so qualify.

The only Federal requirement for the provision of emergency exists apply to buses (Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217 (copy enclosed)). "Bus" is defined by our regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 571.3). Thus, Standard No. 217 would apply to the vehicle you describe if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons (including the driver) while the vehicle is in motion.

The standard does not use the term "secondary means of egress" but specifies a minimum area of unobstructed opening that may be provided by several means (e.g., emergency door, "push-out window").

SINCERELY,

ANSCHELEWITZ BARR ANSEL & BONELLO

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Program

Att: Conrad Cooke

Re: Feimster v. Concord Motor Homes Our file #14247

Pursuant to Mr. Williams' telephone conversation with this office on 7 September 1976, he informed me that you have conducted an investigation relative to recreational vehicles having secondary means of egress.

Concord Motor Homes, the defendant in the above-captioned matter, alleges that the windows of their recreational vehicle quali as secondary means of egress in that one can break the tempered glass and climb out. The windows involved in this accident were not the "pop-out" type.

I do not agree with Concord Motor Homes' assumption that these windows qualify as a secondary means of egress.

I would appreciate it if you would forward to me any information you may have with regard to whether or not windows of recreational vehicles qualify as secondary means of egress, and, if so, the standards said windows must comply with as a secondary means of egress. If there is a charge for this information, please advise and I will forward you a check at once.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Ansell

ID: nht76-5.13

DATE: 04/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request for interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.

You point out that "unobstructed passage" through the opening could be considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelpiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.

The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occur when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 22, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, PARAGRAPH S5.4.2a, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 26, 1976

This paragraph specifies a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide, and 12 inches deep. We need an interpretation as to the reference point from which the 12" dimension should be measured. The four alternatives are:

1. From outside body at floor level.

2. From inside body at floor level.

3. From outside body at top of parallelepiped.

4. From inside body at top of parallelepiped.

As you can see from the enclosed photograph, the measuring point can make several inches difference depending on where it is located.

Because time is so important to us in complying with this standard and several others, we have made a decision to proceed based on measuring the 12" at the floor level with the rear surface of the parallelepiped flush with the outside surface of the body as shown in the enclosed photos. If this interpretation is not valid, please call us immediately. We shall look forward to your early written confirmation of this interpretation.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.14

DATE: 05/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Delbert L. Latta; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your March 23, 1976, request for consideration of the views of a constituent that provision of air cushion restraint systems in passenger cars would be too costly, and that motor vehicle regulation should concentrate on used vehicles because they are equipped with fewer safety and emission features.

As you are aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue motor vehicle standards that will reduce the number of accidents and deaths, and the severity of injuries, that occur on our nation's highways. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation evaluates the available means to meet this goal. Restraining vehicle occupants to protect them against impact with the vehicle interior in a crash offers one of the greatest opportunities for improving motor vehicle safety. Reliance on existing seatbelt systems has prevented only a small portion of the death and injuries that occur from impact with the vehicle interior. For this reason, other means of providing restraint are under consideration. I can assure you that the issues of purchase cost, replacement cost, and the alternatives to air cushions are being included in this consideration.

The safe operation of motor vehicles has traditionally been regulated by the individual States and not the Federal Government. While the Act does not authorize the retrofit of safety devices to vehicles in use, the NHTSA has issued a highway safety program standard for State periodic motor vehicle inspection programs (23 CFR @ 1204.4). Part 570, Vehicle in Use Standards (49 CFR Part 570), sets forth a procedure for inspection of older vehicles for use by the States in implementing the program standard. Also, the NHTSA has established demonstration diagnostic inspection projects that include emission as well as safety inspection of vehicles in use.

I have no basis for comment on the reported decision by Allstate Insurance Company not to consider the effects of bumper modification in establishing its premium structure.

I trust that this response will answer your constituent's questions.

ID: nht76-5.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 8, 1976, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to safety glazing for use in "slow moving" vehicles. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions. Apparently, your earlier letter of February 5, 1976, was misplaced.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in most motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A glazing manufacturer must certify any glazing that is to be used in a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) as being in compliance with Standard No. 205. "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's opinion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" under the definition. Glazing material that is to be used in a vehicle that does not qualify as a "motor vehicle" does not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd

Robert L. Carter -- Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 5th February 1976 I wrote to the Department of Transportation requesting information on possible regulations in the U.S.A. governing the safety glazing to be fitted in slow moving vehicles. To date I have not received a reply. It may be that the letter was lost in the post and I, therefore, enclose a copy.

I realise, of course, that this query is probably nothing to do with your department, but I would be grateful if you could either forward it to the correct authority or alternatively let us have the address of this authority in order that we can write to them ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

The Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir,

SLOW MOVING VEHICLES

Can you please let us know what regulations, if any, govern the type of safety glazing which must be fitted in slow moving vehicles (i.e. vehicles with a maximum speed of 20-25 km/h) in the U.S.A. These vehicles are usually agricultural or forestry vehicles, etc. which might go on a public road for short periods.

Our understanding of U.S. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966 and F.M.V.S.S. 205 are that neither covers such vehicles. The former describes a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" and the latter applies only to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motor cycles, slide-in campers and pick up covers.

If the above query does not come within your jurisdiction, we would be grateful if you would forward our letter to the correct authority.

Yours faithfully, TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY LIMITED;

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

ID: nht76-5.16

DATE: 05/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. A. Olsen, Ph.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1976, question whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the replacement of seat belt webbing in seat belt assemblies to refurbish deteriorated portions of the webbing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to regulate the manufacture, but not the repair, of motor vehicle equipment such as seat belt assemblies. The NHTSA has issued a standard that applies to the manufacture and sale of seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209)). In enforcement of this standard, the agency must, therefore, distinguish between what is "repair" and what is "manufacture" of a seat belt assembly.

You intend to accept existing seat belt assemblies from vehicle owners and to replace the webbing portions, reusing the hardware that is recovered from the existing assembly. From this description, the agency considers that the operation would constitute the manufacture of a seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209. The majority of the assembled product would be new material, and the manufacturing operations involved in cutting and sewing constitute significant factors in the construction of the finished product.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. OLSEN, Ph.D. Engineering Psychologist

Licensed Psychologist: Pa. #PS0235 Member: APA, PPA, HFS, IEEE, SAE

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We have been considering establishing a mail-order firm specializing in replacement of the webbing of seat belt assemblies. As you may know, belt replacements through automobile dealers may cost $ 15-20 per assembly, while the webbing, which is the only component that deteriorates, could be supplied for about $ 1-2. By reuse of the hardware and quick turnaround times, stocking only the most common assemblies and allowing trade-ins, this service could expand as the demand increases and keep the cost low.

We would like an opinion from NHTSA on the standards which might be involved in such a service. Specifically, if webbing, assembly, and sewing are comparable to original equipment, would any testing for final assembly strength be required? We assume that reasonable workmanship would be sufficient if standard components and procedures are used. Any extensive testing or certification requirements would preclude initiation of this service firm since very small initial volumes would be anticipated, and cost must be kept low to cover labor, postage, and supplies.

We feel that the public is beginning to appreciate the value of seat belts, partly as a result of the interlock which demonstrated that the belts themselves "weren't so bad after all." Now there needs to be a way to replace frayed belts at a price that is not a strong deterrent.

Richard A. Olsen

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht76-5.18

DATE: 03/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wenke; Burge & Taylor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 10, 1976, letter concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for boat trailers.

You have presented the following two examples:

GVWR -- 3300; GAWR -- 2970 and

GVWR -- 3000; GAWR -- 2700.

Assuming that 10 percent of the trailer's loaded weight is carried by the towing vehicle, each example reflects a permissible relationship between the GVWR and the GAWR. Your letter indicates that your client presently provides a GVWR figure of 3000 pounds,

based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle.

If by this you mean that the boat trailer's axle system has a load carrying capacity of 3000 pounds, then the trailer would actually be entitled to a GAWR of 3000 pounds and a GVWR of 3333 pounds. Your client is free, of course, to establish more conservative load ratings. However, the GAWR should not be less than 9/10 of the accompanying GVWR.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WENKE, BURGE & TAYLOR

February 10, 1976

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Your File No. N40-30

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your letter of January 15, 1976 concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.

I want to confirm with you my understanding of your letter by an example so that I can be certain I am properly advising my client. The trailers manufactured by my client presently provide a certification that provides a GVWR figure based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle. That is, a typical trailer would carry ratings as follows: GVWR - 3000; GAWR - 3000. Assuming, for example, that 10% of the trailer weight and load is carried by the towing vehicle, it would appear that my client is presently providing a GAWR higher than necessary. Can the label be changed to reflect a lower GAWR in either of the following ways:

GVWR - 3000

GAWR - 2700 or

GVWR - 3300

GAWR - 2970

Thank you for your consideration and please call me collect at the above number if you should have any questions regarding this matter.

Very truly yours, John F. Evans

ID: nht76-5.19

DATE: 12/13/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, requesting information on the legal aspects of the change in the definition of "school bus."

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) will read as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition of "bus" will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The new definition of school bus will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and it it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will therefore have to have school bus lights as specified by the standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Our experience with the comparative accident patterns of Type I and Type II buses does not justify the use of different lighting systems for the two types. In view of Congress's expressed desire to have the school bus standards uniformly applicable to buses of all sizes, we consider it appropriate to apply the lighting standard to all school buses.

We understand your concern with the effects that the newly applicable requirements will have on your purchase of Type II vans. However, we are persuaded that the requirements are reasonable and that they will protect school children.

If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

ID: nht76-5.2

DATE: 08/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

COPYEE: ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.; U.S. TESTING CO., INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretations regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles.

Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system "can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint." Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct.

Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturers's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure.

In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crush requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct.

It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in the standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation.

In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, the agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar.

SINCERELY,

April 6, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 209 Demonstration Procedures

FMVSS 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies in detail performance requirements which must be met by automotive seat belt assemblies. The manner in which conformance with these requirements is to be demonstrated is outlined in S5 of FMVSS 209. Both the performance requirements and the demonstration procedures reflect the design characteristics of those types of seat belt assemblies commonly in use when the standard was written. We have experienced difficulty in applying these requirements to the single loop type seat belt assembly employed on current Volvo vehicles.

Attached are a discussion of section S4.4(b) and a discussion of sections S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) of FMVSS 209 outlining our interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 209 apply to single loop type seat belt assemblies. Also attached are illustrations of the Volvo single loop seat belt assembly. Your verification that our interpretation of FMVSS 209, as stated in the attached discussions, is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 209 would be appreciated.

Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the undersigned. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3)

S5.2(d)(3) specifies that a seat belt buckle shall be subjected to a compressive force of 400 pounds applied ". . . anywhere on a test line that is coincident with the centerline of the belt extended through the buckle . . ." (alternative 1) or ". . . on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees . . ." (alternative 2). The requirements which shall be met, when tested in this manner, are found in S4.3(d)(3).

The intent of these requirements is expressed in Docket 69-23, Notices 1 and 2, published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4641) and on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4607), respectively, where it is stated that the test will tend to eliminate buckle designs which are prone to accidental damage, or which release during the initial phase of the accident.

For a design where the buckle is rigidly mounted on the floor between the front seats (see attached description), its location protects it from accidental damage and from release during the initial phase of an accident. It is our interpretation that if the buckle crush requirements are at all applicable to buckles of this design and location, they shall be tested in accordance with alternative 1 above and the force shall be applied as indicated on the attached description. The basis for this interpretation is that the only damage which may occur results from compression if the seats are displaced as a result of a side impact, where the protective effect of a belt in any case can be discussed.

Therefore we request you to:

(1) state if the buckle crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3), when tested in accordance with S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to the described type of buckles, and

(2) if so, if our interpretation as to how this test shall be conducted is correct.

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.4(b)

S4.4(b) specifies requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and in the upper torso restraint, respectively. Then S4.4(b)(3) specifies requirements for components which are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints.

A Type 2 seat belt assembly which is designed as a continuous loop seat belt with a sliding locking tongue, can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint. Therefore we interpret S4.4(b)(1) and (2) as not directly applicable to such a design of seat belts. Only S4.4(b)(3) should apply, which indirectly covers the same aspect of performance. The maximum elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(4) and (5) can be met by limiting the double-roller block travel to 10 inches when the 6000 pounds force is applied.

The breaking strength requirement of S4.4(b)(6) for a webbing cut of the pelvic restraint should be applicable to any webbing cut in a continuous loop seat belt.

In accordance with our interpretation, a continuous loop seat belt assembly should be tested as indicated in the following figure:

As can be seen from this figure, the test set up includes all attachment hardware, and the positions of the components simulate as close as possible their actual positions in a vehicle.

We request that you confirm our interpretation as stated above.

(Graphics omitted) Part of drawing No 1290538

(Graphics omitted)