Interpretation ID: 86-3.2
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 05/01/86
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA
TO: A.D. Fish
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand
Dear Mr. Fish:
We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.
In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:
1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.
2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.
If you have further questions, please contact my office.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Enclosure
14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION
18 September 1985
AIRMAIL
Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.
Dear Sir
We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.
The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).
2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.
FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.
Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated.
Yours faithfully
A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division
18I5/Trl