ID: nht93-7.25

DATE: October 15, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/93 from Michael F. Hecker to John Womack (OCC-8882)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The

agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R- Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window retention and Release (S571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (S571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, occupant Crash Protection (S571.208). 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. S1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR S567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated

February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that it would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

ID: 8882

October 15, 1993

Mr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries Post Office Box 2017 Lompoc, CA 93438

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter concerning our June 29, 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars.

In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars.

You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there "appears to be some confusion" resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and "the general safety of school buses," such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly "certify" the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer.

Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer.

As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222); Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217); Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302); and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance.

If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7.

The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222.

If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above.

This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208.

You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement.

I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222#571#VSA d:10/15/93

ID: nht91-5.23

DATE: August 12, 1991

FROM: Frank Kenney -- Sporting Tailors Manufacturing Co.

TO: Office of the Chief Councel (Counsel) -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Kenney (A38; Std. 302); Also attached to copy of 49 CFR 571.302, pages 517-519: Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials; Also attached to letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron of Western Star Trucks Inc. (Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are planning to manufacture roll bar or "Bikini Tops" for off road Vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. We are presently clothing manufacturers and this would be a new product line we would becoming involved with. We, therefore, have, some questions for you.

Since this is an "after market product", it is our understanding that the roll bar tops must conform to automotive code #302 which has to do with passing flammability requirements. We have resolved this problem by imparting a flame retardent element between the vinyl roll bar top and the brushed nylon black backing fabric ass per the enclosed sample. (The vinyl top fabric is bonded to the brushed nylon tricot black fabric and the flame retardent is sandwiched between the two fabrics.)

Our question is the following: (Please refer to diagram of the roll bar top and the fabric sample enclosed)

Would the binding fabric strips sewn all around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and finished appearance also be required to have a flame retardent element added to the back of the strips as well?

Since the bonded roll bar vinyl top fabric bonded to the brushed nylon tricot fabric with the flame retardent sandwiched between IS ACTUALLY LYING BETWEEN THE STICHED BINDING STRIP, would it be required to make the strip flame retardent as well? Would we not be duplicating our efforts?

We would greatly appreciate your response to this at your very earliest convenience.

We understand that we must conform to 49 CFR Part 566 manufacturer identification and if there would be anything else that would apply to this after market product, please advise us.

The last question we pose to you is the following: If we supply a tote bag to the consumer in order that the roll bar top may be kept clean while not in use, would this tote bag also be required to conform to Automotive code #302:

We thank you in advance for your comments and information.

ID: 22133deddo

Mr. Daniel G. Deddo
Child-Seat Safety Products Co.
3600 Lime Street, Room 118
Riverside, CA 92501-2972





Dear Mr. Deddo:

This is in response to your letter asking for this agency's comments on your new product, the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors. Specifically, you ask whether your product complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You have developed a type of anchorage system for child restraints. The system is designed to be retrofitted to vehicles already on the road (as opposed to being installed in new vehicles by the vehicle's manufacturer or by an alterer). The anchorage system consists of three anchor points, each of which you call a "grabber." The "grabbers" consist of an O-ring type component attached to one end of a length of belt webbing. The other end of the webbing is bolted to the vehicle structure. Your sales brochure has the following description:

1. Top grabber installed at back lid of rear seat or on floor in SUV's [sport utility vehicles] or minivans, used to fasten upper child-seat tether strap.

2. Bottom grabbers ... are installed at the junction of the seat and back, to anchor child-seats and booster seats.

3. Bottom grabbers are attached to safety tested webbing and bracket, bolted to the car body pan with reinforced body washer....

In addition, you would bolt a tether strap to child restraints to attach to the "top grabber." You also provide a "nylon tether strap with hooks" that anchors to the lower "grabbers" on the vehicle seat. The nylon strap would be routed through the belt path molded into child restraints.

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA issued a safety standard for child restraint anchorage systems, Standard No. 225 (49 CFR '571.225). This standard requires all new passenger vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems meeting specified strength, configuration, marking, and other requirements. A child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower anchorages and a tether anchorage. Passenger vehicles began phasing-in the lower anchorages in September 2000, and the tether anchorage in September 1999. Because it is a "vehicle" standard, Standard No. 225 applies to new motor vehicles and not to an "aftermarket" child restraint anchorage system, such as yours, that is sold for installation on used vehicles.

Nonetheless, we believe that the requirements of Standard No. 225 are necessary to ensure that child restraint anchorage systems provide at least a minimum level of safety. Moreover, anchorage systems with features different from those required by Standard No. 225 could lead to consumer confusion, and therefore have an adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. Therefore, although the standard does not apply to aftermarket systems, we urge you to assess whether your system is consistent with Standard No. 225's requirements, and to make appropriate changes.

While Standard No. 225 does not apply to your product, under NHTSA's enabling statute we consider your product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. ''30118-30221). In the event that you or we determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. For example, if your child restraint anchorage system performs poorly in restraining a child restraint, we may determine that a safety-related defect exists, in which case we could require you to remedy the problem free of charge.

You should also be aware that our statute prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. '30122). If the installation of your product in a motor vehicle results in the vehicle no longer complying with any applicable FMVSS, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed your product would have violated the make inoperative provision. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make inoperative provision. Similarly, if the modification of child restraints (by bolting on tether straps) results in the restraints no longer meeting our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213), any party listed in '30122 modifying the restraint would be subject to substantial civil penalties.

It is impossible for us to determine from the material you submitted whether your system would perform well in a crash. However, we would like to take this opportunity to raise the following issues about your design.

Strength and Durability

We do not know whether your system would be able to securely contain a child restraint system in a crash. It appears that the grabbers are simply bolted to the car body pan with washers, with little or no reinforcement of the vehicle structure. Without reinforcement, the vehicle seat and/or structure may not be able to withstand the crash forces imposed on them. Further, the webbing of the bottom grabbers are routed vertically from the vehicle floor pan through the vehicle seat "bight" (the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back), then lie along the top of the vehicle cushion where they attach to the child restraint. In a frontal crash, the forward motion of the child restraint could cause the bottom grabbers to straighten in the forward direction, which could displace the bottom seat cushion and result in excessive forward translation of the child restraint and excessive excursion of a child occupant's head and chest. In addition, the bottom grabbers are positioned several inches forward of the seat bight. Forward-mounted anchors can allow excessive forward displacement of a child restraint in a frontal collision, especially if the child restraint is not secured at the top tether anchor, which can increase the likelihood of head impacts with structures forward of the child. We strongly urge you to fully assess whether your anchorage system will adequately retain a child restraint and child in a crash, particularly since parents and caregivers might use the Grabber system in lieu of the vehicle's belts.

You specifically asked about Standard Nos. 209 and 210. These standards do not apply to your product. Standard No. 209 applies to straps, webbing or similar devices designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident. However, we recommend that your product meet the standard's specifications, since they increase the likelihood that straps, webbing and buckles perform satisfactorily throughout the life of a vehicle. Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt anchorages on new motor vehicles.

Drilling Holes in Child Restraints

In your letter, you ask whether you are violating any Federal motor vehicle safety standards by drilling holes in child restraints to attach the top anchors of your product. If by drilling holes a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business affects a child restraint system such that it can no longer meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, a violation of the make inoperative provision, discussed above, would result. In addition, the equipment you provide and the installation of it on the child restraint must not result in safety-related defects.

Consumer Information

I note that in your sales brochure advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors you state that your product is "in conformity with NHTSA & FMSS CR 49, 571 and 596, New Federal Motor Standards." Since no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, you cannot claim--in fact, you are prohibited from claiming--that your product complies with Federal standards. Thus, you must remove this statement and any similar statements from any materials advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors.

The brochure also states on its front cover: "A recent new ruling by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that child-seats and booster seats in all passenger vehicles must be restrained with the [sic] new 3-point safety anchors when traveling...." This statement is not correct. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of vehicles and equipment, but not the use of safety systems. Pursuant to the phase-in in Standard No. 225, we are requiring new passenger vehicles to have a specific, universal child restraint anchorage system, one different from yours. Your statement, implying that NHTSA requires the use of your system, is therefore erroneous and misleading. Furthermore, Standard No. 213 excludes belt-positioning booster seats from the requirement to have components that fasten to the child restraint anchorage system. For all these reasons, your statement need to be corrected.

Front Seat Installation

You note in your letter that you intend to install your anchorage system in the front seat of vehicles, "primarily in pickup trucks." We have strong concerns about installing child restraint anchorage systems at seating positions where an air bag is present, due to the hazards associated with deploying air bags, especially for infants in a rear-facing child restraint. The presence of a child restraint anchorage system at the front seating position could mistakenly imply to consumers that the seating position is suitable for a child restraint. For this reason, Standard No. 225 prohibits installation of a child restraint anchorage system at a seating position with an air bag in new vehicles. We urge you to recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, even in vehicles without an air bag. If a rear seat is unavailable, as in a pickup truck, the owner should consider installing an air bag on-off switch. Information about the switches can be obtained from our website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

State Laws and Private Liability

Individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of child restraint anchorage systems a vehicle must have to be registered or operated in that State. Moreover, compliance with our regulations and standards does not insulate you from civil liability. You might wish to consult with a private attorney about such civil liability issues.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers for your information. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213#225
d.8/22/01

ID: 16425-2.ogm

Mr. Todd W. Loescher
Sales/Marketing Manager
Cliff Keyes Mfg. & Supply Co.
2015 West First
Newton, KS 67114

Dear Mr. Loescher:

This responds to your letter regarding aisle facing or side facing seats in commercial buses and multipurpose vehicles. Specifically, you ask whether there is a code of federal regulations for such seats, whether a seating manufacturer can provide attachment points on a seat or seat pedestal for seat belts intended for use on such vehicles and whether a seating manufacturer can attach seat belts on a seat or a seat pedestal for intended for use on such vehicles. In the latter two instances, you ask what code of federal regulations, if any, applies.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are published as separate subsections within section 571 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your questions. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats". The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Your first question relates to regulations applicable to side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles. Standard No. 207, Seating systems, establishes performance requirements for "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In particular, S4.1 requires vehicles to have an occupant seat for the driver, S4.2 specifies general performance requirements relating to strength, S4.3 specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, and S4.4 specifies labeling requirements for seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion. I note, however, that the seats you ask about are excluded from some, but not all, of the standard's requirements. The requirements of S4.2 do not apply to side-facing seats and the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 do not apply to passenger seats in buses.

Your second and third questions concern whether a seat manufacturer can provide attachment points for seat belts, and seat belts, on seats and seat pedestals intended for use on side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles and, if so, which regulations apply.

A seat manufacturer may provide seat belt attachment points on seats or seat pedestals and attach seat belts to those attachment points. I note that it would be the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the seat manufacturer, that would be required to certify the vehicle (with the seat installed) to the applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for safety belts in cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The type of belt required depends on the class of vehicle and location of the seating position within the vehicle. Buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are not required to have safety belts at any location other than the driver's seat.

Standard No. 210 requires the installation of anchorages at any location where a safety belt is required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 excludes side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209, any fabric or trim provided with the seat belts themselves would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/13/98

ID: 18880.nhf

Mr. Jerad Adams
Sales and Purchasing Specialist
Moriden America, Inc.
915 Western Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your letter concerning the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You seek clarification of the flammability test procedure contained in S5.3(f) of Standard No. 302, which states:

Measure the time that it takes the flame to progress to a point 1 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. If the flame end does not reach the specified end point, time its progress to the point where flaming stops.

You ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would determine that flaming has stopped.

You explain that when testing a specimen to Standard No. 302, you find that the flame on the leading edge of the fabric often burns out while the flame on the trailing edge of the fabric continues to burn. You believe that NHTSA would continue timing as long as we continue to see a burning flame, regardless of whether the flame is on the leading or trailing edge of the fabric. Your understanding is correct. We would continue timing until we no longer see any flame on the fabric.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Fradette at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.2/25/99

ID: nht89-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/89

FROM: LOWELL W. SUNDSTROM

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: 571.302 STANDARD NO. 302; FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-22-90 TO LOWELL SUNDSTROM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 108 (A)(2); STD. 302]

TEXT: I am Lowell W. Sundstrom Jr., inventor of several products, one of which may require your approval. It is named the "HOOD LOCKER" (HL). Two pictures of the HL are enclosed.

The HL box will be made of Polyethelene or Polypropolene, the same plastics used in making a battery case. The unit has a tightly fitted lid to keep water and dust out of the box as well as to keep the unused tissue paper inside, dry and clean.

The purpose of the HLis to allow the consumer to have at his or her optimum location, a small tissue paper dispenser wherein the tissues may be used for wiping off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil.

The HL can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, onto the under side of the hood, onto the side or top of the air cleaner, etc. in order to place the HL as conveniently to the crankcase oil dip-stick as is possible.

I have researched the NHTSAdmin., DOT: 571.302. It appears to me that it does not refer to this product because:

1- it will not be placed within the occupant compartments of motor vehicles.

2- it will not be placed within 1/2" of any occupants air space.

I hope your findings are similiar to mine as I feel this is a helpful and safe product that will give the consumer considerable convenience at little expence.

If you think, for any reason, that I can help to expedite your research of the HOOD LOCKER, please feel free to call any time.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 3234o

Ms. Claire Haven
Vice President
Quadwest
27833 Avenue Hopkins
Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Ms. Haven:

This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicles are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a shoulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standards. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the inventor contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agency would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder belt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:VSA#208#209#302 d:l1/22/88

ID: nht93-7.15

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Head, Safety Affairs and Operations, NAO Engineering Safety Center, GM

TO: H. M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: USG 3024, Part IV; Re: Part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards - Docket No. 93-39; Notice 2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Milford R. Bennett (A41; Part 555)

TEXT:

The above referenced docket, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 177, page 48421 on September 15, 1993, granted the petition of General Motors Corporation (GM) to allow a temporary exemption from several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for a fleet of 50 GM Electric Vehicles (GMEV).

In accordance with Part 555.9(a), and as requested by Mr. John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel of the NHTSA, in his letter dated September 9, 1993, GM is submitting a sample of the certification label that will be affixed to the left front door of each GMEV. This label conforms with the requirements found in Part 567 and Part 555.9(c)(1), including revisions to Part 555.9(c)(1) proposed by the NHTSA (Docket 93-40, Notice 1).

Part 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing the statement required by Part 555.9(c)(1) or (2) be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. After a study of this label requirement, including discussion with Mr. T. Vinson, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, GM has concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective buyers that the vehicle has been exempted from certain FMVSS. GM therefore believes that the requirement of Part 555.9(b) to affix a window label to each GMEV is not applicable because GM does not intend to sell the exempted GMEVs. However, if the agency believes that this interpretation is incorrect, please notify us.

If you have any questions regarding these labels, please contact either Mr. R. F. Humphrey of our Washington, D.C. office at (202) 775-5071 or Mr. G. A. Zuchniewicz in Warren, MI at (313) 947-1726.

Attachment (sample of certification label) omitted.

ID: 12248-2.pja

Mr. Frank Dennis
Vice President, Marketing
United Distribution, Inc.
P.O. Box 103
W. Milford, NJ 07480

Dear Mr. Dennis:

This responds to your July 26, 1996, letter asking how Federal regulations would affect your product, the "Vizoret." You describe the Vizoret to be "an auxiliary sun visor" that attaches behind the inside rear view mirror. One of your questions is whether a car dealer could hand a Vizoret to a vehicle purchaser.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Vizoret is to block direct sunlight that passes above the mirror and between the two sunvisors. From the promotional brochure that you enclosed, it appears that the Vizoret is made of some kind of thin, flat, opaque material, about 12 inches wide by 4 inches high, and can be trimmed to size. It has a notch in the center that slides over the mirror mounting bracket, so that the Vizoret hangs behind the mirror. You say that it takes 5 seconds to attach or remove the Vizoret.

The applicability of this agency's standards to your product, and the legality under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations of a dealer handling the Vizoret to a purchaser, depend on when your product is provided to the consumer. If the Vizoret is sold or given to a consumer after a vehicle's sale, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to the product. NHTSA has issued a standard (Standard 302, copy enclosed) requiring certain materials in a vehicle's interior to be flame resistant, including sun visors and shades, but this standard applies to new, completed vehicles and not to items of equipment.

If the Vizoret were made part of a new vehicle, such as by installation by a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer before a vehicle's sale, our standards would be a factor. The vehicle, with the Vizoret installated, must be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard 302. A dealer could not install the product before the vehicle's sale unless the Vizoret met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302. You are correct that the Vizoret would not be considered a part of the windshield, and therefore Standard 205, Glazing materials, would not

apply. You should also be aware that new requirements in S4 of Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, will be phased-in beginning in about two years. They will require head impact protection at specified locations on the upper interior of the vehicle.

We do not regulate vehicle owners adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. If the dealer hands the Vizoret to the vehicle purchaser for the purchaser to use in the vehicle after the sale, our standards would not prohibit this.

However, bear in mind that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (such as the Vizoret) are subject to the requirements of our statute concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product

contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, you should know that individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have requirements affecting the Vizoret. For information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where the Vizoret will be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#205#302

d:9/5/96