Dr. Niall R. Lynam

Senior Vice President

Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.

49 West 3^rd Street

Holland, Michigan 49423

Dear Dr. Lynam:

This responds to your letter, dated March 5, 2013, requesting clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as it pertains to the drivers side outside rearview mirror of a passenger car.

Your letter asks whether FMVSS No. 111 permits the use of a convex mirror having a radius of curvature of thirty (30) meters and a magnification of 0.95 as the drivers side outside rearview mirror on a passenger car. Your letter also requests that, for purposes of providing an interpretation, NHTSA assume that that the mirrors field of view is in accordance with S5.2.1, the mounting is in accordance with S5.2.2, and the construction is in accordance with S11.

Even if we make the assumptions that you request, the plain language of FMVSS No. 111 does not allow convex mirrors as drivers side outside rearview mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 defines two types of mirrors, convex mirrors and mirrors of unit magnification. Paragraph S.4 defines a convex mirror as having a curved reflective surface, whereas a unit magnification mirror is defined as a plane or flat mirror. Paragraph S5.2 of the standard, Outside rearview mirrordriver's side, applies specifically to the drivers side rearview mirror. It states, in relevant part, that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. Thus, it does not permit the use of the convex mirror described in your letter, regardless of its radius of curvature. Rather, a mirror that is flat or plane must be used as the drivers side mirror in order to comply with the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Jesse Chang of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/15/13

FMVSS 111

Mr. Steven Crowell

P.O. Box 303

Eastham, MA 02642-0303

Dear Mr. Crowell:

This responds to your letters to Administrator David Strickland, former Deputy Administrator Ronald Medford, and several other officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which we received in October of 2012. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. You ask for help correcting the violations found in automobile interior partition performance in police cruisers, limousines, utility vans, and taxicabs. The partitions separate the front seat occupants (particularly the driver) from back seat passengers, primarily for security reasons. I will refer to these as security partitions.

From the enclosures you sent, I understand that you believe that security partitions can cause harm to drivers and passengers and should not be installed in vehicles. You have written NHTSA on a number of occasions since 1984 asking about the application of NHTSA regulations to security partitions. Several offices of the agency have responded over the years, including this office. On September 13, 1985, then-Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller sent you a letter explaining how the agencys requirements apply to security partitions.^[1]

You state in a recent letter that NHTSA has been inconsistent in responding to you and that you believe that a May 2, 2012 letter from the Office of Defects Investigation contradicts earlier agency letters to you about security partitions. The 2012 letter appears highly focused on answering your inquiry from the point of view of the defects investigators. The 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsels office should serve to provide an overall view of our requirements as applied to security partitions.[2] In that letter, we noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 applies to such partitions. Since that letter, we have issued various FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 226 (Ejection Mitigation), which specifically excludes certain vehicles that have such partitions, including the types of vehicles you mention. We regret if our letters have caused any confusion.

In your current letters, and judging from your past letters to NHTSA on this subject, it appears that you would like the agency to test and possibly remove the security partitions in the vehicles listed above. As to the merits of the security partitions now in place, we were unable to verify your letters references to the harm caused by security partitions. You are welcome to submit any actual data you have supporting your claims. On the other hand, we acknowledge that security partitions have a place in protecting the vehicle operator from assailants. After considering the available information, including the possible trade-offs to the safety and security of the operator in the absence of a security partition, we regret to inform you that testing security partitions that are now in taxicabs and police vehicles is not an initiative the agency will pursue at this time.

In your letter, you ask a question about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commissions (TLCs) Taxi of Tomorrow program. We suggest that you contact TLC directly for information about the test program.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/11/13

Standard No. 201

Mr. Kevin Ro

National Manager, Technical &

  Regulatory Affairs, Safety

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

601 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 910 South

Washington, DC  20005

Dear Mr. Ro:

This letter responds to Toyotas request for an interpretation of the requirements associated with advanced air bags equipped with multistage inflators.  You state Toyotas belief that the term multistage inflator, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is not intended to be design-restrictive, but intended to characterize various designs of advanced air bags with decision-based deployment strategies that result in different levels of air bag internal pressure.  You request NHTSAs confirmation that technologies that are other than or in addition to the types of technologies traditionally used as multistage inflators that function to adjust air bag pressure based on occupant classification can be used to meet the low risk deployment requirements of FMVSS No. 208.  You have provided an example of one such technology to NHTSA under a claim of confidentiality.  As explained below, NHTSA agrees with you that the term multistage inflator should be interpreted broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure based on occupant classification.

By way of background, on May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kilograms (5,500 pounds) or less.  That final rule established advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-sized adults.  Pertinent to your question, S21 and S23 provide three options for compliance low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression.  Your question concerns the low risk deployment option with respect to the testing of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child test dummies.

In the test procedure for the low risk deployment option for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies (S22.4.4 and S24.4.4), the regulation states that [i]f the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that could occur in a

rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), under the test procedure specified in S22.5.  The test procedure specified in S22.5 (the indicant test) is used in determining the stages that are fired for use in the low risk deployment test.

In the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30688), the agency expressed an intent to avoid adopting requirements that might be overly design restrictive that would make it difficult for vehicle manufacturers to design their air bags to perform well in both rigid barrier tests and the wide range of real world crashes.  In keeping with that sentiment, we interpret the term multistage inflator broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure as a function of time based on factors such as occupant classification and vehicle crash pulse.  The successive variations in deployment levels, regardless of the type of technology that causes them, are considered to be the stages of deployment.  Thus, the low risk deployment test would apply to these new technologies that may be used in lieu of or in combination with traditional multistage inflators.  In NHTSAs compliance testing, we have already observed examples of advanced deployment technologies, and have determined that these technologies can satisfy the low risk deployment requirements, provided, of course, the systems meet the specified performance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/20/13

Ref: Standard No. 208

Mr. Christopher Palabrica

President

Renewed Performance Company, Inc.

1095 Development Drive

Tipton, IN 46072

Dear Mr. Palabrica:

This responds to your email requesting an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. You state that you refurbish fire trucks and, as part of the process, would like to replace the existing Type 2 seat belt assemblies with new Type 2 seat belt assemblies that include seat belt monitoring systems.[1] You ask whether you may install the new seat belt assemblies in the refurbished fire trucks.

In your email it was unclear how extensively you refurbish the fire trucks. In a telephone conversation on August 16, 2016 with Ms. Callie Roach of my staff, you clarified that you are only asking for an interpretation on whether you can use existing anchorages in used fire trucks to secure new seat belt assemblies that include seat belt monitoring systems.[2] The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit you from installing new seat belt assemblies in used fire trucks. Such installation is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any safety feature installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Further, the seat belt assemblies must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209.

General Authority

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Applicable Standards and Requirements

There are several standards and requirements that may apply to the installation of new seat belt assemblies. You specifically reference FMVSS Nos. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. NHTSA has also issued FMVSS Nos. 207, Seating systems; 208, Occupant crash protection; and 302, Flammability of interior materials, which may be relevant. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list and other standards may be relevant to the installation of the seat belt assemblies depending on the extent of the refurbishment.

FMVSS Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply to vehicles on the date of manufacture. These standards are considered vehicle standards that apply to new completed vehicles, as opposed to equipment standards that apply to original and aftermarket items of equipment. (FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard, which we will discuss below.) There is no NHTSA requirement that vehicles continue to meet standards after the vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser.

However, the Safety Act has a requirement under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) to safeguard the continued compliance of vehicles and equipment. Section 30122(b) states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, 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 prescribed under this chapter

The make inoperative provision prohibits any listed entity from making modifications to a vehicle or item of equipment which would impair the vehicles or equipments compliance with any applicable FMVSS. If a vehicle or equipment is in compliance with an applicable standard, listed entities are prohibited from taking them out of compliance.[3]

Discussion

In addressing whether you are permitted to install the new seat belt assemblies, there are three areas of concern: the seat belt assemblys compliance with FMVSS No. 209, the addition of the seat belt warning system, and the make inoperative prohibition under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). We will address each of these concerns below and explain how they could affect your seat belt assembly installation.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the assemblies are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Section 30112(a) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or the equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance at the time it was manufactured. The seat belt assemblies you install must comply with and be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 209.

Addition of the Seat Belt Monitoring System

As part of the refurbishing, you state you are installing seat belt assemblies which have seat belt monitoring systems. From the description provided in your letter, it appears that the seat monitoring systems you would install are similar to the seat belt warning systems referenced in FMVSS No. 208. FMVSS No. 208 provides requirements for seat belt warning systems that vary by type of vehicle and year of manufacture. If a seat belt warning system were required for a particular seating position in the vehicles you are refurbishing, the system must continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 after completion of your work. However, if the warning system was not required for a particular seating position and you are adding a seat belt monitoring system now, the system would be considered an additional safety component. Additional safety components are not required to comply with the provisions of the safety standards, provided that the additional components do not impair the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards.[4] For example, the visual display to the driver that you describe (DO NOT MOVE APPARATUS) must not interfere with the performance of required visual warnings and displays.

Make Inoperative Prohibition

Section 30122 prohibits listed entities from knowingly making inoperative a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipments compliance with applicable FMVSSs, such as by removing, disconnecting, or degrading the performance of a required safety system. As a refurbisher of fire trucks, you are an entity that must comply with 30122. It does not appear that your replacing the existing Type 2 seat belt assemblies with new certified Type 2 seat belt assemblies would violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, when installing the seat belt assemblies, you must ensure that the seat belt assembly is compatible with the existing anchorages and that your work does not degrade the strength of the existing seat belt anchorage system. Damaging the anchorages could take the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 210.

While you have an obligation not to impair the vehicles compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you do not have to actually test the refurbished fire trucks to ensure that compliance is not diminished. However, you could violate 30122 if you should have known that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the modification.[5] In the context of an enforcement proceeding, the agency would assess whether you exercised reasonable judgement in undertaking the modification and reasonable skill in implementing it.

You should also be aware that state and local jurisdictions have the authority to set requirements that apply to the use of vehicles and may have regulations applying to the installation of seat belt assemblies. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Roach at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/19/17

Ref: Standard Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210 and VSA Section 30122

Erika Z. Jones

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your November 29, 2012 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on behalf of Graco Childrens Products, Inc. (Graco), asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. On

January 8, 2013, you and Graco representatives met with NHTSA staff to elaborate on the information provided in your letter.

Your questions relate to a Graco belt-positioning booster seat that has armrests that are height-adjustable so that a caregiver can lower or raise the armrests to a height comfortable for the child. You note Graco has observed that, in some tests, an armrest separated from the booster seat. In other tests, the armrest did not separate, but moved from a lower adjustment position to a higher adjustment position, remaining level.[1] You state that the injury assessment reference values measured by the test dummy used in the tests were all within the limits of FMVSS

No. 213.

You ask about S5.1.1(a) and (b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213, which state:

S5.1.1  Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2). [Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) are not relevant to Gracos question so we do not restate them here.]

*  *  *  *  *

Discussion

The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter and in the meeting, and is limited to the particular aspects of the Graco booster seat you presented.

Question 1. Your first question asks: does S5.1.1(a) prohibit the armrest separating from the booster seat?

Our answer is no, we do not consider the armrest separation to be prohibited by S5.1.1(a). This is because the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a) applies to load bearing structural element(s), and it does not appear that the armrests qualify as such.

Your letter states that the armrests are provided for the childs comfort and to provide a visual guide for the pre-crash positioning of the vehicles Type II belt system. (The owners manual Graco provided (on pages 29 and 35) states: The lap belt portion MUST pass under the armrests and be positioned low on the hips (Emphasis in text.) We assume this is what was meant by your statement that the armrests provide a visual guide.) Graco also indicated in the meeting that the armrests do not contribute to the crashworthiness of the seat.

We have determined that the armrests are not load-bearing structural elements. We interpret the term load-bearing structural element as referring to parts of the child restraint system (CRS) that are needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint and to meet FMVSS No. 213. You indicate that the armrest is provided for comfort and moved due to the Type II belt buckle pushing against it. It does not appear to us that the armrest is needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint or that it contributed to the child restraints meeting the standard. Thus, we conclude that the armrest is not a load-bearing structural element subject to the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a).

Question 2. Your next question asks whether an armrest is required by S5.1.1(b)(1) to remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing.

Our answer has two parts.

First, S5.1.1(b)(1) generally applies to adjustable armrests. The requirement is intended to prevent a childs fingers or limbs from being caught between shifting parts of the child restraint, and to prevent a child from sliding too far forward and downward (submarining) during a crash. A change in adjustment position of an armrest could pose an unreasonable injury risk by collapsing on a childs limb or fingers or by movement that results in a scissoring action, the closure of apertures in which a finger can be caught, etc.

However, we have in the past interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to certain mechanisms. In one letter, we interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to an adjustable shoulder belt clip that moved from an initial adjustment position in FMVSS No. 213s

dynamic test.[2] In another letter, we did not apply S5.1.1(b)(1) to a headrests moving

upward.[3] With those mechanisms, the change in adjustment position would not increase the risk of finger or limb entrapment or increase the risk of submarining.

Thus, our second part to the answer is that we interpret S5.1.1(b)(1) as not prohibiting the armrests change in adjustment position from a lower height to a higher height. That change of position of the armrest would not result in an increased risk of finger or limb entrapment, unlike the case of an armrest that shifted to a lower adjustment position from a higher one. Also, the armrests change of adjustment position would not increase the risk of submarining. We assume in this answer that there is not associated with the change in armrest position any kind of scissoring mechanism between shifting parts to which the child would be exposed, no apertures that become smaller, no increased concentration of forces on the child, etc.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/28/14

Ref: Standard No. 213

Mr. Larry Fowler

Director of School Bus Sales

Matheny Motors

P.O. Box 1304

Parkersburg, WV  26102

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your letter asking about the Do Not Block label requirement in S5.5.3(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.  You ask if it is a violation of a Do Not Block policy to have integrated child seats or child restraint harnesses without tethers adjacent to school bus emergency exits.[1]

In short, the answer to your question is no, provided all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 are met.  Additional considerations relevant to this response and clarification of previous NHTSA statements are discussed below.

Section S5.5.3(d) of 49 CFR 571.217 applies to new school buses with one or more wheel chair anchorage positions.  S5.5.3(d) requires school bus manufacturers to place a label with the words DO NOT BLOCK directly above or beneath each Emergency Door or Emergency Exit label on the school buses.  NHTSA stated that the agencys primary reason for the requirement was to inform school bus users and aftermarket wheelchair retrofitters that emergency exits should not be blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as book bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.[2]  

The labeling requirement of S5.5.3(c) does not establish a prohibition on manufacturers barring them from installing an integrated child seat in the exit row.  If a manufacturer installed an integrated child seat in the exit row, there would not be a per se violation of FMVSS No. 217.  We assume in this answer, of course, that the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 were met.  For instance, S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 217 has requirements that ensure school bus emergency exit openings are of sufficient size for emergency egress.  The exit with the integrated child seat adjacent to it must meet those requirements when tested by NHTSA in accordance with the standards test procedures. 

As to whether a manufacturers installing an integrated child seat in the emergency exit row would be contrary to a NHTSA Do Not Block policy, we assume you are referring to statements in NHTSAs guidelines on transporting pre-school age children on school buses.[3]  NHTSA issued the guidelines in 1999 to foster use of child restraints on school buses to transport pre-schoolers. 

Out of concern that placement of a typical car seat in the seat next to an emergency exit window could possibly impede occupant exit in an emergency, and because the public was generally unfamiliar with using child restraints on school buses,  the agency recommended that child restraints not be placed adjacent to emergency exits (guideline, section 5, p. 4).  The point of the recommendation was to make sure that persons using child restraints on school buses carefully consider the egress issue.  It may be possible for integrated child seats and child restraint harnesses without tethers to be installed such that they do not impede emergency egress from the exit.  However, ultimately it is up to those persons with firsthand knowledge of the bus to assess whether installation of a particular child seat would block the exit.^[4]   

Note that NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  Thus, S5.5.3(d) does not create any Federal requirement that would prohibit school bus users from using harnesses, or any other child restraint system, in any particular seat.  Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  For this reason, State law should be consulted regarding the use of child restraints on school buses.[5]  

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions please contact Analiese Marchesseault of my office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

                                                                        Stephen P. Wood

                                                                        Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/18/15

Standard No. 217

Mr. Emad Louis

8300 Snow Egret Way

Fort Worth, TX 76118

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your September 27, 2017 email asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As we understand your email, you are asking whether the standard allows a certain design configuration on a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus.

In your email, you explain that the bus you purchased has a cargo net that can be pulled and secured across a portion of the back of the bus to allow the back of the bus to be used for storage. You state that, behind the cargo net, there are four foldaway seats that are flipped up when the area is used for storage. As we understand your questions, you ask whether, with this bus design, the standard permits a manufacturer to install a roof exit in lieu of a rear exit to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and whether it is permissible to have a rear door that is not designated and labeled emergency exit. Our answer to both questions is yes.[1]

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

In your email, you provided NHTSA with an email exchange that occurred in June 2016 between the bus manufacturer, Glaval Bus (Glaval), and an employee of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In his response, the FTA employee stated that FTA and NHTSA agreed with Glavals interpretation of FMVSS No. 217.

NHTSA has been unable to confirm any communication between FTA and NHTSA. We point out, however, that official interpretations of legal requirements under this agencys statutes, standards, and regulations are issued only by this office and only in writing. We apologize for any confusion that statement may have caused.

Discussion

Roof Exit

Your first question asks whether NHTSA would permit the installation of a roof emergency exit instead of a rear emergency exit in your bus that has a cargo net that can portion off part of the rear of the bus for use as a storage area.

FMVSS No. 217 permits a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus (non-school bus) to meet the requirement for the provision of emergency exits by either meeting the requirements of S5.2.2 or S5.2.3. We assume from the facts you provide that Glaval intended for the bus to meet the requirements in S5.2.2, which applies to buses other than school buses.[2] In relevant part, S5.2.2.2 states that [w]hen the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.

The purpose of S5.2.2.2s requirement to provide a rear exit is to ensure emergency egress in the case of a rollover. To accommodate bus designs that preclude the installation of an accessible rear emergency exit door or window, FMVSS No. 217 allows the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit door or window. However, the agency emphasizes that the alternative roof exit is only permitted when the bus design precludes installation of an accessible rear exit.[3]

An issue raised by your question is: When does a bus configuration preclude installation of an accessible rear exit? Clearly, buses with a rear-engine design preclude installation of an accessible rear exit.[4] NHTSA has also allowed the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit when a bus had a permanent storage cage that blocked access to the rear emergency exit.[5]

While the past interpretations of what designs would preclude the installation of a rear exits have dealt with permanent structures or vehicle features, NHTSA does not require the configuration to be permanent to preclude installation of the rear exit. Given that the addition of the cargo net, when pulled across/installed, could block passengers access to the rear exit door during normal operation and in an emergency, in this circumstance, NHTSA would accept the manufacturers determination that the bus configuration precluded the installation of a rear exit. Therefore, based on the facts you presented, the installation of the emergency roof exit in lieu of an emergency rear exit would be allowed.[6]

Labeling

Your second question asks whether NHTSA would allow your bus to have a rear door that is not designated as an emergency exit. As we state above, a roof emergency exit is permitted to be installed in compliance with S5.2.2.2 in lieu of the rear emergency exit in a bus with the configuration you describe. As long as the bus otherwise complies with FMVSS No. 217, the rear door would not be required to be designated and labeled as an emergency exit.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/7/17

Ref: FMVSS No. 217

Mr. David Prentkowski
Autoliv North America
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Prentkowski:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an inflatable seat belt assembly your company is developing. You ask which strength test applies to a structural sew pattern that connects the assemblys conventional webbing to its inflatable portion. Specifically, you ask us to confirm your tentative conclusion that the sew pattern is subject to the assembly performance requirements contained in S4.4(b)(2). As explained below, S4.4(b)(2) applies to the sew pattern, but it is not the only applicable strength requirement. The sew pattern, along with the rest of the restraint, must also meet the webbing breaking strength requirement in S4.2(b). What follows is our analysis of your question based on the facts you provided.

Description of Your Product

From the description in your letter and a follow-up phone conversation with Daniel Koblenz of my staff on January 19, 2017, we understand your product to be a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a continuous pelvic and upper torso restraint. The restraint is constructed from a segment of conventional webbing that is connected by a sew pattern to an inflatable portion. The unsewn end of the restraints conventional webbing is connected to a retractor mechanism that can be pillar-mounted or parcel shelf-mounted, and the unsewn end of the restraints inflatable portion is connected to an anchor that includes a gas generator that fills the inflatable portion in certain crash modes. While your product is in use, the sew pattern is typically located behind the occupants shoulder between the occupant and the retractor mechanism.

Requirements

FMVSS No. 209 contains two breaking strength requirements that Type 2 seat belt assemblies must meet: one for the entire seat belt assembly and one specifically for the webbing. As to seat belt assemblies, S4.4(b) states, in relevant part: Type 2 seat belt assembly. Except as provided in S4.5, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly including webbing, straps, buckles, adjustment and attachment hardware, and retractors shall comply with the following requirements when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b): (2) The structural components in the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N.

As to webbing, S4.2(b) states, in relevant part: The webbing in a seat belt assembly shall have not less than the following breaking strength when tested by the procedures specified in S5.1(b): . . .Type 2 seat belt assembly. . . 17,793 N for webbing in upper torso restraint. Please note that, under FMVSS No, 209 S4.1(i), all straps that are used in a seat belt assembly to sustain restraint forces must meet the webbing requirements of S4.2. FMVSS No. 209 S3 defines a strap as a narrow nonwoven material used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing.

These two breaking strength requirements are both applicable, which means that an assemblys upper torso webbing (or a strap subject to webbing requirements) is subject to both S4.4(b)(2) and S4.2(b). However, because the breaking strength requirement for the upper torso webbing (17,793 N) is greater than the breaking strength requirement for the upper torso assembly components (6,672 N), the question of whether webbing (or a strap subject to webbing requirements) complies with FMVSS No. 209s breaking strength requirements effectively turns on whether it meets the webbing-specific requirements of S4.2(b).

Discussion

a. The sew pattern is integrated into the upper torso restraint and cannot be tested in isolation. Before discussing which breaking strength requirement applies to the sew pattern, it is necessary to clarify what the sew pattern is. In your letter, you mistakenly discuss the sew pattern as though it is a discrete component with its own compliance requirements that are severable from the requirements that apply to the two restraint segments that the sew pattern connects. While past interpretations have considered hardware components as discrete components, the sew pattern is inherently different than a hardware component.

The sew pattern is not a discrete component; it is a manufacturing material that is integrated into and made a part of the upper torso restraint. For this reason, we have determined that the entire upper torso restraintincluding the sew pattern, conventional webbing and inflatable segmentsshould be treated as a single integrated component for the purpose of determining whether it is subject to the breaking strength tests in S4.4 and S4.2.

b. The upper torso restraint is a structural component that is subject to S4.4(b)(2). In your letter, you state (and we agree) that the sew patternand by extension, the upper torso restraint that it holds togetheris structural. You believe that, because the upper torso restraint is a structural component, it must meet the assembly performance requirement in S4.4(b)(2). We agree that S4.4(b)(2) applies. We do, however, wish to note that this letter supersedes a 1973 letter to Takata Kojyo Co., which determined that S4.4(b)(3) was the relevant requirement.[1]

c. The upper torso restraint is also a strap that is subject to S4.2(b). We have determined that the upper torso restraint falls within the definition of strap. Accordingly, the upper torso restraint, including its subcomponents, must meet the breaking strength requirements of S4.2(b).

Our conclusion that the entire upper torso restraint is a strap is rooted in both the definition of strap and our previous interpretations of that definition. As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 209 defines a strap as a narrow nonwoven material used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing.[2] We interpret the term nonwoven material here to include any restraint material that is not purely constructed out of webbing (i.e., woven) material. This means that a restraint constructed from both woven and nonwoven materials and that is used in place of webbing is considered a strap. Accordingly, we determined in a 2010 letter to Mr. Kazuo Higuchi that the inflatable portion of an inflatable seat belt assembly that was constructed from an inflatable bladder encased in woven fabric fell within the definition of strap.[3]

Consistent with our determination in the Higuchi letter, we have concluded here that the upper torso restraint of your seat belt assembly fits within the definition of strap. Like the inflatable segment in the Higuchi letter, the upper torso restraint in your seat belt assembly is constructed from a combination of woven material (the conventional webbing) and nonwoven material (the inflatable portion and the sew pattern), and is used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing. Therefore, the entire upper torso restraintincluding the conventional webbing, inflatable portion, and sew patternis a strap.

Because the upper torso restraint is a strap, it is subject to S4.1(i), which states that [a] strap used in a seat belt assembly to sustain restraint forces shall comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2. As noted above, S4.2(b) requires that webbing in the upper torso portion of a seat belt assembly withstand a force of at least 17,793 N. Therefore, to comply with FMVSS No. 209, your seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 17,793 N when tested in the manner prescribed by S4.2. Please note that, as stated in the Higuchi letter, NHTSA will not disassemble the restraint when testing it.

Other Issues

Please be aware that, as a strap the upper torso restraint must meet all of the S4.2 requirements for webbing, not just those for strength and abrasion. We felt it necessary to clarify this point given your statement: [W]e understand that both the webbing and inflatable seat belt portions of the system would need to meet the strength and abrasion resistance requirements as specified in FMVSS 209. FMVSS No. 209 S4.1(i) requires that straps comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2. There are a number of requirements in S4.2 in addition to strength and abrasion resistance.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

NCC0200:Dkoblenz:3/2/17:revised 4/20/17:62992(cyb 5/3/17)

Reprinted with edits 5/3/17 and 5/22/17

S:\INTERP\209\571.209 -- Inflatable Seat Belt Assembly -- Autoliv -- 16-003634 -- 05.22.2017.docx
Greenbooks FMVSS No. 209, Redbooks, NRM, NEF

Ms. Sharon Conrad

Program Manager, Office of Injury Prevention

Georgia Department of Public Health

2600 Skyland Drive, NE, Room 4D

Atlanta, GA 30319

Dear Ms. Conrad:

This responds to your email dated October, 2012 and subsequent conversations with staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting clarification of NHTSAs requirements regarding the buses used by childcare centers to transport children to various locations. You explained to Analiese Marchesseault of my staff that some Georgia childcare centers provide transportation services from the childrens homes to the childcare center only, while some provide transportation from home, the childcare center (for before- or after-school care), and school. You asked specifically about the use of multifunction school activity buses (MFSABs) in these situations.

By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, but does not regulate vehicle use. Several of your questions ask whether our requirements permit the childcare centers to use the buses for transporting the children to the described places. In this letter, we answer your questions about the permissibility of a person selling the new vehicles to the childcare centers. However, since each State has authority to determine how school children must be transported, including the transportation of children by childcare centers, your questions about the permissibility of using the vehicles would be answered by State law.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  Our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),[1] requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs.

In the school bus context, under our regulations a bus is any vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more, including the driver, and a school bus is a bus that is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events.[2] The Safety Act requires any person selling a new school bus (i.e., a bus that meets the school bus definition) to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses.[3] Under our regulations, a multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) is defined as a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students to or from home or school bus stops.[4] An MFSAB must meet all the FMVSSs applicable to school buses except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms).[5]  Under the Safety Act, a person may sell a new MFSAB as long as the bus will not be used to transport students between school and home or school bus stops. If the new bus will be used to transport students between school and home or between school and school bus stops, a school busnot an MFSABmust be sold.

NHTSA interprets school in the context of our school bus regulations not to include daycares, childcare centers, or preschools, including Head Start Programs.[6] Accordingly, NHTSA does not regulate, under our school bus regulations, the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to and from these facilities. We assume in this answer that the center is not also using the vehicles to transport the children to schools.

If the centers are also using the vehicles to transport students to schools, a different outcome can result. Our school bus regulations are applicable to buses that are likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events. Determining whether a vehicle is used significantly for transport to or from school is a case by case determination. For the purpose of responding to your questions, we will assume that the vehicles used to transport students to schools in the situations you describe are used significantly for that purpose.[7]

You have asked about the applicable requirements for a number of scenarios involving child care centers transporting children and students. With the above background information in mind, we will address them in turn.

1. First, you ask if NHTSA regulates the sale of vehicles to childcare centers when the purpose of the vehicles would be to transport children from home to childcare centers. As stated above, NHTSA does not consider childcare centers to be schools in this context. Therefore, NHTSA does not regulate the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to such facilities from their homes. In answer to your specific question asking if childcare centers may be sold an MFSAB for transporting children to and from home to the childcare center, our answer is yes.

2. The second scenario you ask about involves significant transportation to or from school. You ask if NHTSA permits the sale of new MFSABs to childcare centers for the purpose of providing transportation between the childcare center (for before- or after-school care), and school. Our answer is that an MFSAB or a school bus may be sold to a childcare center for this purpose.

While childcare centers are not schools," in the situation you describe they provide transportation to or from school and are therefore covered by the Safety Acts school bus provisions. Your question was addressed in a letter to Lisa Sanford from July 4, 2009,[8] in which NHTSA addressed the issue of a non-school entity providing transportation to after-school activities. We stated that in a situation where buses are used regularly by a non-school entity to take students from school to after-school activities, dealers selling a new bus would be required to sell a bus that met all applicable school bus or MFSAB standards.

Note that this scenario does not involve transporting students to home or school bus stops. Thus, either an MFSAB or a school bus could be sold for transporting students between school and a childcare center. If the bus were transporting students to home or school bus stops, a school bus (and not an MFSAB) must be sold.

3a. Another scenario is a child care center transporting students from home to a childcare center and then to a school, using the same vehicle. NHTSAs regulations require that a new vehicle sold for this purpose would need to be a school bus because it involves significant use of the bus for transporting students to school. Further, a school bus and not an MFSAB must be sold, because an MFSAB is a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students to or from home or school bus stops. In this scenario, childcare centers are essentially transporting students from school to their homes in the same vehicle, and stopping at the childcare center during that trip. Accordingly, a new MFSAB could not properly be sold to a childcare center for these purposes, because transporting students to or from home is involved. A new bus sold to a childcare facility for the purposes of both transporting students to or from school and to or from homes would be required to meet the school bus standards, i.e., a school bus (and not an MFSAB) must be sold.

3b. We reiterate, however, that if a separate vehicle is sold for these two purposes ((1) transporting children between a childcare center and home or school bus stops, and (2) transporting students between a childcare center and school) there is more flexibility regarding the type of vehicle that may be sold. A new MFSAB or school bus may be sold for transporting children solely from childcare centers to school (i.e., there is no transportation to or from home or school bus stops). Additionally, since NHTSA does not regulate, under our school bus regulations, the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to and from childcare centers and non-school facilities, vehicles other than MFSABs or school buses may be sold for those non-school transportation purposes (see above answer to scenario number 1).

4. A fourth scenario involves a childcare center transporting students directly from home to school. A dealer selling a new bus would be required to sell a school bus for this purpose. As discussed above in scenario number 3a, this situation involves significant use of the vehicle for transport to school. It also involves transporting students between school and their homes. An MFSAB is a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students between school and home or school bus stops. Therefore, a new bus sold to a childcare facility for the purposes of transporting students from school to their homes would be required to meet all of the school bus standards.

In closing, we note also that while NHTSA does not regulate the types of vehicles that may be sold for transporting children to Head Start programs, Head Start has regulations regarding vehicle use for its programs. Head Start programs should consult with the Office of Head Start if they have questions regarding compliance with those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Analiese Marchesseault of my staff (202-366-1723).

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 2/28/13

571.3 VSA School Buses

Ms. Kathleen Weber

Project Director

University of Michigan

Child Passenger Protection Research Program

2901 Baxter Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150

Dear Ms. Weber:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify the meaning of S5.1.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

Section S5.1.3.2 states:

In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, all portions of the test dummys torso shall be retained within the system and neither of the target points on either side of the dummys head and on the transverse axis passing through the center of mass of the dummys head and perpendicular to the heads midsagittal plane, shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces (illustrated in Figure 1C).  (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the underlined phrase means that both of the planes must be passed for there to be a failure, or whether passing a single plane would be sufficient to constitute a failure.  For the reasons set out below, we construe this phrase to mean that passing through any single plane constitutes a failure to comply with the standard.

In reviewing the language of S5.1.3.2, we recognize that the plural planes could be read to refer to both or either of the planes.  Fortunately, we believe this possible ambiguity can be resolved using a common sense approach.  If S5.1.3.2 were read to specify that both of the planes must be passed for there to be a failure, there would be no failure if only the upper limit illustrated in Figure 1C (the plane containing the top-most point on the child restraint system surface) were passed.  That result would render the upper limit plane meaningless.  In contrast, if S5.1.3.2 is construed to mean that passing either of the planes could constitute a failure, each of the planes is meaningful in determining the excursion limits.  For example, it may be possible for the test dummy to not ramp up and exceed the upper limit depicted in Figure 1C, yet the dummys head could rotate sideways in such a way that it could pass through the plane that designates the forward limit, especially with restraints that have little or no side supports for the childs head.

I hope this answers your question.  If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.                                                                  

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/25/98

Ref: Standard No. 213