ID: 003011cmc

Ms. Patricia Cunningham
London Taxi North America
80 Union Avenue
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Ms. Cunningham,

This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:

Except as provided in S5.2.1.2, each child restraint system other than a car bed shall provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back which is an integral part of the system[.]

S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1.

The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/31/03

ID: 003059 bts

Mr. Joe Masci
Pollak Switch Products Division
300 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Masci:

This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below.

1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209.

You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:

[A]ny component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:

[A]ny strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 209)

In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210.

2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements

In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance.

Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b).

S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2).

S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b).

3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware.

You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle.

For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible.

4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required.

We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively.

5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components.

You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.7/16/03





---

[1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986.

ID: 003064 Spain inflatable seat

ID: 003066drn

Ron Love, State Director of Pupil Transportation

Delaware Department of Education

The Townsend Building

P. O. Box 1402

Dover, DE 19903-1402

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with agency staff in this office and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance about the sale, for pupil transportation, of a new vehicle whose seating capacity you believe may have been reduced from that of a bus (seating 11 persons or more).

As to your general inquiry, if a buss seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicles sale, the vehicle would no longer be a "bus" and thus would not be subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle would instead be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). While a dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to a school (provided there are no local regulations that would prohibit the sale), the entity altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to MPVs. I have enclosed a copy of an April 2, 1996, letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner that provides a helpful discussion of this issue.

As to the particular vehicle you ask about, information available to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has indicated that the van was originally manufactured as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. According to this information, the vehicles classification had not been changed from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the vehicle, as originally manufactured, would have had to have been certified as meeting the FMVSSs that apply to MPVs.

If you have further questions about NHTSAs school bus laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Questions you might have about the van you saw may be directed to Mr. James Jones, OVSC, at (202) 366-5294.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3

d.4/11/03

ID: 003090Evenflo_SpanII_labels

Mr. Randy Kiser
Director of Product Safety, Research & Development
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter concerning questions you had about the possibility of Evenflo voluntarily providing child restraint labels in Spanish. You explain that Evenflo currently provides printed instructions in Spanish free of charge upon request, but has not provided bi-lingual labels for the child restraint itself. You are considering changing the latter situation by placing a label in Spanish on your child restraints informing consumers that, upon request, Evenflo will send them Spanish labels for them to adhere to their restraints. The "duplicate set of labels" would fully and accurately translate the information required of the English labels.

You ask whether three "options" related to this initiative comport with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The first option involves telling consumers to affix the labels next to the English labels. The second option involves instructing consumers to affix the Spanish labels in places where they might not be visible when the child restraint is installed. The third option involves instructing consumers to adhere the Spanish language labels over the English labels.

The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale"). Your options relate to the modification of child restraints by owners after the first retail sale. Because used child restraints are involved, FMVSS No. 213 generally does not limit where aftermarket labels are affixed.

However, manufacturers are limited in the statements they may make on the labeling of a new child restraint or in the child restraint owners manual. S5.5 of the standard states: "Any labels or written instructions provided in addition to those required by [FMVSS No. 213] shall not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required

information or be otherwise misleading to the consumer. "Affixing Spanish labels over the required English labels obscures the English labeling. We interpret the term "shall not obscure or confuse" in S5.5 as including labels or instructions that result in the obscuring of the required information by the consumer. Accordingly, Evenflo cannot include an instruction in the labeling or instructions to paste the Spanish labels over the English labeling. Obscuring the information could pose problems for second-hand owners who do not understand Spanish.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.8/20/04

ID: 0031

Mr. R. H. Goble
President, Goble Enterprises
P.O. Box 423
Lake Mary, FL 32795

Dear Mr. Goble:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1994, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting systems that you have developed, and your question about the regulations that may apply to each.

As we understand the first system, when the brake pedal is applied, the front turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps are simultaneously activated to indicate to observers from the front and side that the vehicle is braking. It appears that this activation is in a steady burning state which continues unless and until the turn signal lamps are activated in either the flashing turn signal or hazard warning signal more. You have also developed a "Wheel Well lighting system", which "will provide light indicators all around (brake, clearance, turn signal, emergency flashers)" through amber lamps mounted in the well at the top of each front and rear wheel opening. As we understand this system, these supplementary lamps will be activated simultaneously when the four named lamp systems are activated.

The regulation governing the lighting on new motor vehicles (i.e., requirements that must be met when a new vehicle is delivered to its first purchaser) is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to optional equipment such as your systems, Standard No. 108 allows each, provided that each does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The law governing the lighting on motor vehicles after their first sale is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In essence, it allows installation of each of your systems by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as long as the system does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with" Standard No. 108.

We regard any supplemental lighting system with the potential of creating confusion in the eye of the beholder as one that impairs the effectiveness of other lamps on the vehicle, and

one that renders inoperative, in part at least, other lamps by compromising their effectiveness. This is especially true when existing vehicle lamps are used to convey messages that are different from the purpose of those lamps. We believe it especially important to motor vehicle safety that signal lamps convey their message unmistakably and without ambiguity. We see no real problem that might be occasioned by the activation of the front turn signal lamps in a steady burning mode, although this might cause initial puzzlement in the eye of an oncoming driver unfamiliar with the system. While confusion is more likely when the turn signal is operating on one side while the other side remains steady burning, we believe that the flashing of the turn signal will continue to be interpreted as an intention to turn. Of course, when the hazard warning system is activated and completely overrides the steady burning front stop lamp, there would be no confusion as to signal message. Therefore, in our opinion, Federal law permits use of your front stop lamp system.

Your second system does not operate through existing vehicle lamps but consists of additional lamps mounted in the wheel wells. These lamps would appear not to have the potential of confusion since they supplement existing lamps and operate in conjunction with them to convey the same message. Thus, Federal law, in our view, does not preclude use of your second system either.

However, even if a supplementary lighting system is permissible under Federal law, it is subject to regulation by any State in which it is operated. We are not able to advise you with respect to State law, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108#VSA d:6/29/94

ID: 003258drn

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

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You wish to confirm that portions of joints outside of the passenger compartment or that otherwise do not "enclose bus occupant space" are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. In particular, you ask about joints that are below the level of the floor line.

You described the portions of joints at issue as follows:

the top edge of the outside side panels on Blue Bird school buses start at the bottom of the side window openings and [the panels] continue down the side of the bus body, terminating with a bottom edge approximately 18 inches below the floor line. There are vertical joints between these panels and between these panels and other body components such as roof bows. The upper portions of these vertical joints are above the floor line while the lower portion of the same joint is below the floor line. [I]t is our understanding that the vertical joints between these side panels that lie above the floor line are subject to the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221 (because the portions of the joined panels above the floor line serve to "enclose bus occupant space") while the portions of those joints below the floor line are excluded from the requirements (because the portions of the joined panels below the floor line do not "enclose bus occupant space").

You cite our April 26, 1976, and August 20, 1981, letters to Blue Bird and conclude from these letters that all joints below the "floor level" are exempt from FMVSS No. 221.

Generally speaking, joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221. However, in a letter of January 14, 1991, to Blue Bird, the agency clarified that the April 26, 1976, letter excluding joints below the floor line was predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level that encloses the occupant space, and that is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard.Thus, the agency did not agree with Blue Birds view that stepwell-to-floor panel joints were below the floor level and excluded from FMVSS No. 221s joint strength requirements.

Accordingly, while we concur generally that joints below the floor line are excluded from FMVSS No. 221, we believe that there could be misinterpretation by a manufacturer as to whether a particular joint is considered such a joint. For example, we have enclosed two photographs on which we have superimposed the floor line on the bus exterior. The section of the circled joint above the line is subject to FMVSS No. 221; the section of the joint below the line is not. While we cannot provide you with a general response to your question, we will review more detailed information about a specific joint that might fall below the floor line of the bus to determine the applicability of FMVSS No. 221.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Should you choose to submit more detailed information for review, please submit it to Ms. Nakama.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:221
d.8/13/03

ID: 003418drn

Mr. Matthew Sausaman
Director of Engineering
Turtle Top
67819 State Road 15
New Paris, IN 46553

Dear Mr. Sausaman:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (49 CFR 571.221), to "multifunction school activity buses" (MFSAB) that your company plans to manufacture. You currently manufacture buses for commercial and transit applications. You state that "the construction of our vehicle includes no seams in the passenger area; hence we are having trouble determining test applicability."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is responsible for determining its vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSSs and to certify that the vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs.

On July 31, 2003, NHTSA published its final rule creating the MFSAB as a school bus category (68 FEDREG 44892, copy enclosed). The final rule takes effect on September 2, 2003, but manufacturers have the option of complying with the new rule as of July 31, 2003. MFSABs are school buses. Since FMVSS No. 221 applies to school buses, the standard applies to MFSABs.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that the terms that establish the applicability of the requirements of FMVSS No. 221 to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S5, Requirements (March 17, 1977, letter to Mr. Edmund C. Burnett). That section states:

S5.1 Except as provided in S5.2, each body panel joint, including small, curved, and complex joints, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2.

The terms "body panel" and "body panel joint" are defined at S4 of FMVSS No. 221. "Body panel" means a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus occupant space. "Body panel joint" means the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood.

S4 and S5.1 together specify that if the edge of a surface body component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact with or is in close proximity to any other body panel or body component, the requirements of S5.1 apply, unless the body panel joint is excluded in S5.2.

You write that your vehicle "includes no seams in the passenger area." Very little information about the construction of the bus was provided. If your bus consisted of a single, seamless, body component and had no body panel joint whatsoever, there would be no body panel joint subject to FMVSS No. 221. However, this appears unlikely, since the specifications you enclosed of your component body construction refers to the welding of the roof to the sidewall frames, the rear body panel to the sidewall and floor frame, and the bonding of the exterior rear panel to the rear frame. That is to say, it appears that your vehicle could have an area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. If you identify a particular joint to us, we might be able to interpret whether the standard applies.

Please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d:8/12/03

ID: 003453rbm--June 6

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the use of the Cosco Dream Ride car bed in conducting tests for the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S19 of FMVSS No. 208 requires that a manufacturer certifying compliance with the advanced air bag requirements for infants through automatic suppression certify that the passenger air bag will suppress when tested with any child restraint listed in Subparts A, B and C of Appendix A to the standard. The Cosco car bed is currently the only restraint listed in Subpart A of the appendix. You state in your letter that the car bed does not fit in the front passenger seat of one of your vehicles. You also state that this problem is likely to be encountered with other models of vehicles. Accordingly, you have requested an interpretation stating that compliance with S19 is not required for a child seat that cannot reasonably be installed at any seat track position without contacting the interior of the vehicle. We have determined that manufacturer certification is not required with respect to any child restraint that cannot be placed in the vehicle at any seating position without significant contact with the vehicle interior as described below.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003 (65 FR 30680). Several of the issues raised in your letter were discussed, either directly, or by analogy, in the preamble of that final rule.

In your letter, you explain that the Cosco car bed cannot be installed in a manner that allows for the proper placement of the car bed. In the full forward and full rearward seat track positions, the door of the vehicle cannot be closed. In the mid-track position, the door can be closed, but only by pushing the interior edge of the car bed against the

gear shift, such that you believe a driver would be unable to operate the vehicle. Even at this position, you note that the car bed must be placed at an angle that is inconsistent with the restraint manufacturer's installation instructions. Additionally, because of the placement of the car bed against the gear shift, the occupant classification system detects an empty seat and the telltale indicator does not illuminate. Because the occupant classification system defaults to air bag suppression if the system reads the seat as empty, the air bag would suppress if the car bed were placed in the seat. You go on to state that the Cosco car bed is no longer in production and that no other car beds are currently distributed for sale in the U.S. market. [1]

The test procedures for S19 are contained in S20 of the standard. Under that provision, if a child restraint contacts the vehicle interior, the vehicle seat is moved rearward until there is no contact. At that point, the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance with the standard. There is no corollary language in S22 or S24, which provide the test procedures for the three-year-old and six-year-old compliance options.

The discussion in the preamble related to the "no contact" language of S20.1.2 is limited to contact with a rear facing child restraint and the vehicle dashboard. (See discussion at 65 FR 30711, 30724.) The language was included because we had found in our testing that when some convertible child restraints were tested in their rear facing position with the vehicle seat in a full forward position, the child restraint was either severely tilted or entirely lifted off the seat of some vehicles. We stated that we did not believe parents or caregivers were likely to transport an infant in such a position. Rather, it was our opinion that the vehicle seat would be moved back to accommodate the child restraint. The agency did not anticipate a situation where the width of the child restraint would prevent placement of the restraint without contacting the vehicle interior. Likewise, we did not contemplate a situation where no seat track position could be found that would allow the restraint to be placed in the vehicle without contacting the vehicle interior.

We will not conduct compliance testing for, and manufacturers will not be required to certify compliance with, S19 when the child restraint's width results in so significant a level of contact with the vehicle interior that one would not reasonably expect a parent or caregiver to place the restraint in the front seat. We will consider the following factors in determining whether to do so: first, whether the placement of the restraint in the seat prevents one from closing the door of the vehicle; second, whether the placement of the restraint prevents the driver from operating the vehicle in a reasonable manner, e.g., because of interference between the restraint and either the gear shift or parking brake; and third, whether the restraint is rotated so that it deviates more than 30 degrees from a longitudinal vertical plane. In deciding to drop a proposed test condition in which the restraint was placed on the seat at a 45-degree angle with that plane, we noted that it was unreasonable to assume that parents would actually place a restraint so markedly out of position. (See discussion at 65 FR 30710-11.)

Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that at least two of these factors may be applicable. The inability to close the car door in the full forward and full rearward seat track positions would obviously preclude the use of the car bed in those positions. Likewise, depending on the amount of interference, the gear shift interference could prevent a driver from operating the vehicle with the car bed in the mid-track position. We note that if other seat positions permit reasonable placement of the child restraint, then compliance testing would be performed at these seat positions.

At this time, we are not deciding that limited contact between a child restraint in Appendix A and the vehicle interior, other than contact between a rear facing child restraint and the dashboard or console, would relieve a vehicle manufacturer from its certification responsibilities with respect to the advanced air bag requirements. Parents or caregivers may use a restraint in the front seat even though there is some contact with the vehicle interior. In those instances, it is appropriate to require manufacturers to certify compliance with the standard using that restraint, and we intend to conduct compliance testing even though there may be some degree of contact.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.6/9/03





---

[1] Cosco has informed NHTSA that the Dream Ride car bed has not been discontinued. Rather, it is manufactured only when someone places an order for it.

ID: 00372Villeneuvedsp

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
A. Girardin Inc.
Trans Canada Highway
Drummondville (Qubec) J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

This responds to your January 6, 2003, e-mail and subsequent telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). You ask several questions about a bus that has wheelchair securement devices and only one 34-inch wide forward-facing bench seat in the passenger compartment. You stated in your February 27, 2003 telephone call that the bench seat has two designated seating positions.

Number of Anchorage Systems

Your first question asks how many child restraint anchorage systems must be installed in the vehicle. Assuming the vehicle is subject to FMVSS No. 225 [1] , the answer is two if there are two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle. S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 225 specifies that, in vehicles with not more than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions, a child restraint anchorage system must be installed at each position. Accordingly, an anchorage system must be installed at each of the two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle.

Location in Vehicle

Your second question asks whether the bench seat with the anchorage system must be positioned immediately behind the driver, or whether it can be installed in the rear of the bus. FMVSS No. 225 does not specify where a seating position must be located. Instead, the standard specifies locations for child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages based on the seating configuration of a particular vehicle. In the case of the subject vehicle, regardless of whether the seat is located directly behind the drivers seat or located at the rear of the vehicle, the seat is the "second row of seating" and therefore two child restraint anchorage systems must be installed on this two-person seat.

If the vehicle were installed with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions, then the requirements of S4.4(a) would apply. The requirements for location of child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages are determined by considering the number of designated seating positions, the seating row number (e.g., second, third, etc.) and the outboard or non-outboard location of forward-facing designated seating positions. The proximity of seating positions to the drivers seat is not a determining factor apart from the above criteria.

Flip Seat

Your final question asks whether FMVSS No. 225 requires the installation of a child restraint anchorage system in a "flip seat." The key to answering this question is whether the seat contains designated seating positions. "Designated seating position" is defined in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

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

The agency does not define auxiliary seating accommodations, but has addressed the issue in a number of interpretation letters. The agency has stated that the term "folding jump seat" applies "solely to the type of seat that is used from time to time in such vehicles as taxi cabs and limousines to accommodate, for short periods of time, an excess number of passengers. The usual form of jump seat is a seat that folds down from the rear of the front passenger seat."See April 28, 1971 letter to Mr. Keitaro Nakajima.

The fact that the seat is a flip seat is not determinative as to whether it is excluded from being a designated seating position. We understand that Girardin would installing either a Freedman Feather Weight AM or BV Foldaway. This seat is available from the manufacturer as a one- or two-passenger seat. That is, it does not appear that the seat is

just an auxiliary position. Without information indicating that the flip seats are not designated seating positions, we cannot concur that they would be excluded from having child restraint anchorage systems.

If you have further questions, please contact Dee Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/29/03





---

[1] Note that a vehicle is subject to the standard depending in part on its classification. In determining a vehicles classification, a wheelchair restraint position counts as either one or four designated seating positions depending on whether the vehicle is intended to be used for pupil transportation. See definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3.