NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht91-4.19

DATE: June 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-14-91 from Michael L. Harmon to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5721)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply.

As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of "child restraint system" in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to "add-on child restraint systems" only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to "built-in child restraint systems" only.

The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.1.1 relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S-C- 1381-1431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under S151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect

or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Standard No. 213 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term "child restraint system" is defined as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition.

Some of Standard No. 213's requirements apply generally to "child restraint systems," i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of "child restraint system," it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to "child restraint systems": S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability).

In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 213 either specifies separate requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines "add-on child restraint system" without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as "any portable child restraint system." The term "built-in child restraint system" is defined more restrictively, as "any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car." (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 213's requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems" only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: aiam2736

Dear Dr. Sturtz: Mr. Ralph Nader forwarded to me your letter dated November 23, 1977 concerning your difficulty in determining whether your 1977 Ford Econoline van is equipped with an energy absorbing steering column.; Ford Econoline vans are equipped with conventional steering column that are not energy absorbing. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 203, *Steering Control Impact Protection*, and No. 204, *Steering Control Rearward Displacement*, are currently only applicable to passenger cars, so manufacturers are not required to have energy absorbing steering columns on van vehicles. Ford has not voluntarily equipped its vans with such steering systems.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shares your concer in this subject. As a matter of fact, the agency has initiated high priority rulemaking proceedings to extend the applicability of Several passenger car standards, including Standards 203 and 204, to both vans and light trucks.; Please let me know if you would like further information on automotiv safety matters.; Sincerely, Howard J. Dugoff, Deputy Administrator

ID: aiam2599

Dear mr. Wilkins: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter, concerning Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire labeling requirements contained in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.; Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels i governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meet the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0040

Dear Mr. Darby:#Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.#The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.#In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls. For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.#We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.#Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam2506

Dear Mr. Ziwica: This is in response to your January 17, 1977, letter concerning th requirements of Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, For passenger cars. You requested confirmation of your interpretation that the standard specifies no requirements for outside rearview mirrors on the passenger's side of the vehicle when the inside rearview mirror meets S5.1.1 of the standard.; Your interpretation is correct. If the inside rearview mirror of passenger car meets the specified performance requirements, the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. However, a manufacturer is free to equip its vehicles with outside right-hand mirrors, either plane or convex, if he choses(sic).; You should note that each passenger car whose inside rearview mirro does not meet the field of view performance requirements of Paragraph S5.1.1 must have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger's side of the vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0596

Dear Mr. Allison: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, on the subject o an automobile dealer's obligations regarding seatbelts in new cars.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires seatbelts to b installed at all seating positions. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which we administer, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. A dealer may not, therefore, sell an automobile that does not have the required number of seatbelts.; Although the act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle fro removing the belts, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him to leave the belts in and to wear them. A dealer who removes the belts after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2436

Dear Mr. Commander Heath: This responds to your September 16, 1976, question whether any Federa regulation required that the maximum load rating assigned to a passenger car tire be reduced by approximately 10 percent in calculating its maximum load rating for use on a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, or bus.; The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 120, *Tire Selectio and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, became effective September 1, 1976, and provides for the reduced maximum load rating you describe. Section S5.1.2 of the standard provides in part that '[w]hen a tire listed in [the passenger car tire standard] is installed on a multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, or trailer, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.10 before calculating the sum [that must at least equal the axle system's gross axle weight rating].' A copy of the standard, with subsequent amendments, is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2603

Dear Mr. Wilkins: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.; Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels i governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers (sic) seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2635

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. On your certification labels, you listed the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2604

Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two propose labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicles safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel