ID: nht91-6.45

DATE: November, 1991 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-14-91 from Robert W. Smith to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, 1990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that - a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108.

ID: nht92-8.2

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Danis -- Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. (Quebec)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Charles Danis to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6991)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR S571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure.

The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-2.48

DATE: 07/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA Z. VINSON FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: D. R. Bernard, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1975, providing further information for our determination whether certain "safety lights" would violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

There is no Federal prohibition against sale of this accessory in the aftermarket. It would, however, be subject to regulation by the states. For the following reasons, it could not be used as original equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a minimum spacing of 4 inches (edge to edge) between the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps and a minimum spacing of 9 inches (centerline to centerline) between the turn signals. The purpose of this spacing is to provide a distinctive indication of the turning direction. A flashing stop lamp located in close proximity to the steady-burning stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 would, in our opinion, impair the effectiveness of the rear turn signal within the meaning of S4.1.3, during a combined braking and turning operation. Such a lamp would also be prohibited by S4.6(b) which, in effect, requires all original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BERNARD & BERNARD -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Pursuant to your letter, we are providing the following supplemental information in order for you to reach a decision in regard to the proposed safety lights.

1. The flashing lights will be no brighter than the standard brake light, but will be mounted in close proximity to the said brake lights.

2. The flashing lights will be a different color from the turn signals and will not interfere with the operation nor be confused with the turn signals.

3. The flashing lights will be the same color normally as the brake lights and will have a frequency of flashes approximately twice the speed of the signal light for turns.

It is hoped that this information will be satisfactory to you, and your conclusion as soon as possible would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

D. R. Bernard

ID: nht72-4.47

DATE: 08/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In your letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses, requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. "Designated seating capacity" is defined to mean "the number of designated seating positions provided," while "designated seating position" means "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats" (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of "intent," is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 139(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in compliance with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).

We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirements for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.

ID: nht68-1.9

DATE: 12/15/68

FROM: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY--NHTSA

TO: Heath Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the "Boonie-Bike" assembled from it.

I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of the Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called "mini-bikes".

Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that:

". . . for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product."

Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a "5-broke horse power Briggs and Stratton 4-cycle engine" it is sub-classified as a "motor-driven cycle" which is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less".

As you(Illegible Word) Federal Standard(Illegible Word) 103 will apply to motorcycles manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.

I hope this answers your questions

ID: aiam4572

"Dear Mr. Wolpe: Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnle on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years. We have two sets of 'regulations' for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of 'regulations,' or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states, rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: 'The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.' The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states: Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding. We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. The figure '15' in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure '15' in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female. It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved. NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials. Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit. Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child. Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at 'W' seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed";

ID: aiam5307

"Dear Mr. Haywood: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993 requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows: Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases. You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. If a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all 'occupant seats' in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer. Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht88-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD FRIEDMAN -- PRESIDENT-LIABILITY RESEARCH, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter dated November 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system "Cradle S afe," and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call "Premie Cradle," and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, defor mable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs.

Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows:

"In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant.

The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed."

You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because "the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obviou s." To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn.

On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety

Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your "Premie Cradle" product.

By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a "modified" Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 21 3. You state further that a restraint system you call "One-ride" also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the "One-ride" restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the Apri l 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency; a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy; and submiss ions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products.

As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dum my), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an "unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicl e and not required in (Standard 213) testing." You explained that the "belt" to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment.

I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials b ecause they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 po unds (infant restraints).

Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies "no complete . . . and no partial separation" of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4" thickness which in deforming, tear slight ly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant.

Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of

less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as o ne of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a wa y as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely; and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the syste m, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance.

Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. Th e system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16" woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compre ssion-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam.

Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be "covered" with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable "covering" if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbi ng padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding.

The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the mater ial's compression-deflection

performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213.

You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifyi ng a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified "long-established static tests" of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requ irements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2.

The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three proce dures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Stand ard 213.

Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles.

Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 "Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system..." is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not r equired in testing, need not conform to this paragraph.

Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the "belt" to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child re straint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any b elt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly.

In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended fo r use in restraining a child.

Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 l b. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed "travel crib" category and does not require dynamic testing.

Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR @ 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended "for use by children in a weight range that includes ch ildren weighing not more than 20 pounds.") That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17. 4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specifie d 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems.

The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluatio n of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child res traint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978; 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy i s a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulem aking process.

Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.)

While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard.

Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum.

Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grant s your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. ENCLOSURES

ID: ACSBcmc

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to an auxiliary child shoulder belt system (ACSB) for use with belt positioning boosters. Specifically, you ask whether the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt or as a child restraint system. As explained below, the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt.

Background

Your letter states that the ACSB would be an add-on shoulder belt that would allow the use of belt positioning boosters at seating positions equipped with lap belts only. You state that:

The add-on shoulder belt would be equipped with a standard buckle and length adjustment. It would easily attach to the lap belt buckle, and hook onto the standard top tether anchor for the rear outboard seating position using a standard tether hook.

You also state that the add-on shoulder belt would be recommended for children between 50 and 80 pounds. The add-on shoulder belt would not be originally installed in vehicles but would be provided as an aftermarket product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

Your letter asks about the applicability of four standards; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. I have addressed each standard below.

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210

Your assertion that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not apply to the ACSB is correct. FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Because the ACSB would not be part of the vehicle as manufactured or sold, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not be applicable. However, please note that any commercial business that would install this product would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that:

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

None of the above named businesses would be able to install this product if installation would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with an FMVSS.[1]

FMVSS No. 209

Under FMVSS No. 209, the add-on shoulder belt would be classified as a Type 2a shoulder belt. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard and applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in a vehicle or installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

FMVSS No. 209 defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as an "upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."[2] As you state in your letter, this product would provide upper torso restraint and would be intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt only, making it a Type 2a shoulder belt. Type 2a shoulder belts are generally not permitted as original equipment under FMVSS No. 208.[3] However, this general prohibition under FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle standard and does not prohibit the sale of Type 2a shoulder belts as aftermarket equipment.

You would be required to certify that the ACSB complies with the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 209. Under S4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 2a shoulder belt is required to "comply with applicable requirements for a Type 2 seat belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4, inclusive." While only those requirements raised by your letter are discussed below, keep in mind that the ACSB would be required to comply with all of the applicable requirements in S4.1 through S4.4.

S4.1 Requirements

S4.1(f) Attachment hardware

Type 2a seat belt assemblies have specific hardware requirements under FMVSS No. 209. However, because of the design and the intended manner of use of the ACSB, it would not be required to provide the attachment hardware specified under S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209. S4.1(f) requires that a seat belt assembly must include:

all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Installation," November 1973. However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.

Because the attachment hardware required under S4.1(f) is needed for permanent installation of the seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret S4.1(f) to apply only to seat belt assemblies designed for permanent installation. In this instance, the ACSB is designed to attach to a vehicles existing tether anchorage with the tether hook supplied with the ACSB, allowing for installation when a belt-positioning booster is placed in a seating position that has a lap belt. (The requirements for the tether hook are discussed later in this letter regarding S4.3.) Additionally, in the past we have not required seat belt buckles to comply with requirements that are obviously inapplicable.[4] Because the ACSB is not designed for permanent installation, it would not have to comply with the hardware requirements of S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209.

S4.1(g) Adjustment

The add-on system would not have to be certified as complying with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209, which requires Type 2a seat belt assemblies to be capable of fitting up to the dimensions of a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.1(g) contemplates seat belt assemblies that would be permanently installed in motor vehicles. Permanently installed belts need to fit a wide range of occupants. Conversely, the ACSB would be recommended for use only with a booster seat and only for children weighing between 50 and 80 lb. Because of this limited and specific recommended use, the ACSB would not be required to comply with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209. However, as discussed below, the ACSB must be labeled with information about the size of the occupants for whom it is intended.

S4.1(k) Installation instructions and S4.1(l) Usage and maintenance instructions

S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require appropriate installation and use instructions to be provided with the add-on shoulder belt. S4.1(k) requires the ACSB to be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient information for its proper installation. As such, in this case these instructions would have to including a statement that the assembly is for installation only in motor vehicles with an upper tether attachment point that meets the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 225. S4.1(l) requires that written instructions on proper use accompany the assembly. Because proper use of the ACSB would only be with a booster seat and only for children up to 80 lb, the instructions would be required to specify as such. Also under S4.1(l), a warning would have to be provided stating that the system is not to be used without a lap belt or by occupants weighing over 80 pounds. In addition, we suggest that you consider placing warning labels on the belt to inform occupants of the weight and use restrictions.

S4.2 Requirements for Webbing

FMVSS No. 209 establishes several requirements for the webbing used in a Type 2a shoulder belt. These include width, strength and elongation requirements.

S4.2(a) Width

S4.2(a) establishes a minimum width for specific portions of webbing in a seat belt assembly, including a Type 2a belt. Seat belt assembly webbing must be a minimum of 46 mm in width, except for portions that do not touch a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.2(a) ensures that belt webbing coming into contact with an occupant spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury. The shoulder belt portion of the add-on belt meets the minimum width, but the attachment webbing for the add-on buckle is of narrower width.

You state that the narrower webbing is not intended to apply restraint force to the occupant and is of a short, non-adjustable length. If the narrower webbing would not apply restraint force to the occupant, then the webbing need not meet the minimum width requirement.

S4.2(b) Breaking strength and S4.2(c) Elongation

You state that the ACSB buckle is attached to the lap belt with a short loop of 25 mm wide webbing. You concluded that because the ACSB buckle webbing would be used solely as a loop in the assembly, the strength and elongation requirements should be applied to the webbing as a loop and not to a single piece of webbing. We disagree. After the ACSB buckle is attached to the vehicles lap belt, it would be possible for the ACSB buckle attachment to experience a substantial portion of the loading along a single piece of webbing, not the loop. If the webbing were to break at a point on a single strap, the anchoring could fail. In addition, the load may not be distributed equally across both sections of the loop. One section could experience a higher load than the other. Because of these potential consequences, the strength and elongation requirements of S4.2(b) and S4.2(c) would be applied to a single piece of the ACSB buckle webbing and not to the webbing as a loop.

S4.3 Requirements for Hardware

S4.3(c) Attachment hardware

The tether hook used to anchor the add-on shoulder belt to the tether anchorage at an adjacent seating position would be considered a "quick-disconnect" type of attachment hook under FMVSS No. 209 and would be required to meet certain strength requirements. The tether hook is a single hook and would be capable of quickly connecting to, and disconnecting from, the tether anchorage, which acts as an eye bolt. Under S4.3(c)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies having single attachment hooks of the quick-disconnect type for connecting webbing to an eye bolt shall be provided with a retaining latch or keeper ("keeper"). "Keepers" must be certified as not moving more than 2 millimeters (mm) in either the vertical or horizontal position when force is applied as specified in S5.2(c)(3). The "keeper" requirements ensure that the attachment hardware does not disconnect when loaded. Because the tether hook used with the add-on belt would function as a quick-disconnect type of attachment hook for a Type 2a seat belt, the tether hook spring clip would be required to comply with the "keeper" strength requirements under FMVSS No. 209.

FMVSS No. 213

In your letter, you ask if the add-on shoulder belt would be defined as a child restraint system (CRS) under FMVSS No. 213 if it were recommended for children between 40 and 80 lb. Because this assembly would be a Type 2a assembly, it would be excluded from the definition of a CRS. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines a CRS as any device, except a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 lb or less.[5] (Emphasis added.) The add-on shoulder belt is intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt. Under the intended use, the entire assembly would provide pelvic and upper torso restraint and function as a Type 2 seat belt assembly. As a component of a Type 2 assembly, this product would not be a CRS under FMVSS No. 213. We note that while the ACSB is currently excluded from the definition of a CRS, Antons Law (Pub. L. No. 107-318; 2002) requires NHTSA to consider whether to include injury performance criteria for booster seats "and other products for use in motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds" under FMVSS No. 213.

In closing, the agency encourages approaches that may increase the use of child restraint systems, provided that the approaches comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do not compromise the safety of motor vehicle occupants. As with any product that is designed to attach to an existing device on a vehicle, we urge you to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of misuse of the product. Further, the use of an additional buckle on a product used to restrain children could increase the difficulty in releasing the child in an emergency situation. We appreciate your concern in thoroughly considering these and all other safety issues.

If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209#213
d.4/8/03





---




[1] It is unclear whether additional loading from the ACSB would adversely impact the vehicles existing belt and anchorage systems. You should determine if the ACSB would negatively impact compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, or 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 S3, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

[3] The agency determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair (58 FR 11975; March 2, 1993).

[4] See letter from Frank Berndt to Donald J. Gobeille, dated April 4, 1976, in which the agency states that buckles that are unlikely to contact the steering wheel in a crash situation do not have to meet the crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209.

[5] The agency is considering amending the definition to include devices recommended for use by children 65 lb or less. (67 FR 21836.)

ID: aiam0162

Dear Mr. Hilgendorf: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary o Transportation has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standards were applicable, because a tire is labeled '2-ply' it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger cars manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109, and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.; Very truly yours, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel