ID: nht90-4.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Captain J.P. Henries -- Safety Officer, Virginia State Police

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-6-90 from J.P. Henries to P.J. Rice (OCC 5411)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent letter seeking further information about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the extent to which those standards require safety belts to include a lap belt portion. More specifically, you stated that Virginia's S tate Inspection Program currently requires any 1963 and subsequent model years vehicles designed and licensed primarily for passenger use to be equipped with lap belts or lap/shoulder belts for at least two front seating positions. However, my September 10, 1990 letter to Mr. Rembert Ryals explained that front seating positions equipped with automatic safety belts that are certified as complying with our 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements are not required to include a lap belt either as a par t of the automatic belt system or as a separate manual lap belt. To aid in the efficient administration of Virginia's State Inspection Program, you asked how Virginia safety inspectors could readily identify those vehicles that were not originally requi red to be equipped with lap belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you with the following information.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), requires every vehicle other than a bus to have, as original equipment, a safety belt installed at every "designated seating position." Two different types of safety belts have been installe d pursuant to this requirement. The first type of safety belt is generally called a "manual" safety belt. With manual safety belts, the occupant of the seat must take some action to fasten the belt to be protected in a crash. Manual belts are required t o have a lap belt portion, that is, manual safety belts must be either lap-only or lap/shoulder safety belts.

The second and newer type of safety belt is called an "automatic" safety belt. An automatic safety belt positions itself to protect an occupant of the seat without any separate deliberate actions by the occupant. The occupant protection afforded by aut omatic safety belts is evaluated in a 30 mph crash test of the vehicle using test dummies as surrogates for human occupants. Because automatic safety belts must demonstrate their effectiveness in a crash test, they are not subject to all of the requirem ents that apply to manual safety belts. One of the manual belt requirements that does not apply to automatic belts is the requirement that the safety belt include a lap belt portion. Hence, as noted in my letter to Mr. Ryals, automatic belts are not re quired to include a lap belt.

It is easy to distinguish automatic safety belts from manual safety belts, by looking at where the upper end of the shoulder belt is anchored to the vehicle. Manual belts have the upper end of the shoulder belt anchored to the vehicle structure, such as the B-pillars. Again, since most current

safety belts are manual belts, this is the safety belt anchorage location with which you and the members of your department are most familiar. Because automatic belts must position themselves around occupants automatically, they must be anchored in a dif ferent way. Nonmotorized automatic belts are anchored to the door itself, while motorized automatic belts run along a track over the top of the doorframe. These anchorage locations enable either design of the automatic belt to properly position itself around a seat's occupant when the person gets into the vehicle and closes the door, and enable the automatic belt to move out of the way to allow the person to get out of the vehicle when the door is opened.

Although automatic belts are not required to include a lap belt, nearly all manufacturers have voluntarily chosen to provide lap belts for seating positions equipped with automatic belts, either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt. This is not always the case, however, as Volkswagen, for instance, has not voluntarily chosen to provide a lap belt with some of its automatic belts. Further, since there is no requirement to provide those lap belts, manufacturers may not choose to co ntinue providing lap belts in the future for seating positions equipped with automatic belts.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: 8353

Mr. Thomas C. Baloga
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07450-0350

Dear Mr. Baloga:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12- inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

--the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B- pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;

--the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

--no certification label is attached.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes.

You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jerry Sonosky, Esq. Hogan & Hartson ref:209#108 d:3/10/93

ID: nht93-2.12

DATE: 03/10/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS C. BALOGA -- MANAGER, SAFETY ENGINEERING, MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

COPYEE: JERRY SONOSKY -- HOGAN & HARTSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO TELEFAX MEMORANDUM DATED 3-1-93 FROM THOMAS C. BALOGA TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 8353)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

--the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;

--the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

--no certification label is attached.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by @ 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes.

You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

ID: aiam0695

Dear Mr. Belier: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you pose questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.; Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 tha the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the 'Park' position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in 'Park' but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.; If the shift is in the neutral position, as stated in your secon question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.; In response to your last question on Standard 208, an 'operatin engine' is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in 'Park' and the ignition is 'On', but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.; Your question on Standard 215 is whether the headlamps must b adjustable after the tests 'so as to permit restoration of normal lighting' or whether it is sufficient for the lamps to be adjustable plus or minus 4 degrees vertically and horizontally whether or not this restores normal lighting. Our reply is that the requirement is intended to provide for the safe operation of the lamps after impact and that the lamps must therefore be adjustable in a manner that restores normal lighting.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4498

"Dear Mrs. Bicking: This is a response to your letter of last fall i which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this Office to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation. Your first question references the January 1984 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating GVWR ), the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210. The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to all applicable standards. You ask whether this decision still stands. The answer to that question is 'yes' for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the 'compartmentalization' concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses. Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.) You also asked whether there have been any improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards since they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement. You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contace Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht95-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lois Castillo -- Travel Tray, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/94 from Lois Castillo to Joan (John) Womack (OCC 10464)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is desig ned to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) N o. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seat s," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray a ttached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are design ed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remed y of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . a ny part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in v ehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 3 0122.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht72-3.47

DATE: 10/13/72

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jesse R. Hollins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition of August 15, 1972, as supplemented by your brother's letter of August 28, 1972, requesting our consideration of your seat belt warning system as a substitute for the warning and interlock systems currently specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

As we understand the operation of your system, one of its operating modes resembles the mode presently specified in S7.3.1 of the standard. Your system provides for the operation of a warning signal when the ignition is "on" and the seat belts at occupied front positions have not been operated. Section S7.3.1, considered by itself, would permit such a system, even though that section does not require the warning to operate unless the engine is operating and the vehicle is in a forward gear.

However, your system does not meet the requirement of S7.3.3 that the warning not operate when the vehicle is idling with the transmission in park or neutral position and the belts have not been operated. The argument presented in your brother's letter is that the sudden operation of the warning system when the transmission is placed in a forward gear would be an annoyance to occupants and would result in circumvention of the system.

The NHTSA position is that the convenience of being able to sit unbuckled in a parked car without the warning is such that this "quiet" period should continue to be required. It may be that some occupants will be bothered when the warning begins to sound as they place the car in gear. However, we are persuaded that the current system would be less likely to be circumvented than a system that has no period of non-operation.

The other operating mode of your system has no direct counterpart in Standard 208. As you describe it, returning the ignition to the "off" position will activate the warning system, even after removal of the key, until the belts are returned to their stowed positions. Our letter of August 17, 1972, explained that this will not conform to the requirement of S7.3.2 that the warning must not operate when the belts at occupied front positions have been operated.

We recognize that there are other possible alternative to the required interlock system as a means of encouraging seat belt usage, and several have been suggested. We consider it important, however, that these systems work in a substantially uniform manner, for maximum public safety, acceptance and convenience. On the basis of all the material we have received to date, including yours, we have decided that our present requirements represent the best combination for the alternative to passive restraints in the period 1973-1975. I therefore must deny your petition to substitute your system, or allow it as an alternative, for the interlock system.

ID: 23060ogm

James D. Sillery, Esq.
Mollica, Gall, Sloan and Sillery Co., L.P.A.
35 North College St.
Post Office Drawer 958
Athens, OH 45701





Dear Mr. Sillery:

This responds to your April 25, 2001, letter in which you relate an incident in which the seats of a 1999 Toyota Camry automobile collapsed in a rearward direction after the vehicle was struck from behind. You further indicate that the manufacturer of the vehicle has indicated to you that the seats in question were designed to "yield" in the event of a rear impact in order to absorb the energy that would otherwise be transmitted to the seat occupant in a rear end collision. You are concerned about the potential safety consequences of such a seat collapse for both the occupant of the seat and other occupants sitting to the rear of an occupied seat. Due to your concern, you ask if the issue of seat back strength has been "dealt with" by this agency and what the agency's position is in regard to these seats.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

NHTSA is very concerned about seat back strength and performance. The agency's present performance standard for seats, Standard No. 207 (49 CFR 571.207) went into effect for passenger cars in 1968 and was extended to multipurpose vehicles, trucks and buses in 1972. Since that time NHTSA has embarked on a number of actions intended to study the feasibility of upgrading the standard's requirements. In 1989, the agency granted five petitions for rulemaking. Each requested that NHTSA consider certain changes to Standard No. 207. Pursuant to the granting of these petitions, NHTSA published a Request for Comments in the Federal Register (57 FR 54958) in November 1992 asking for input on agency research findings and a proposed research plan. (Responses to the request for comments, which you may find illuminating, can be accessed through the Department of Transportation's electronic docket system at http://dms.dot.gov/ under docket number 4064.) Since the publication of the Request for Comments, NHTSA has performed a study of the relationship between seat performance and injuries and conducted research aimed at gaining a greater understanding of seat performance and the means for improving seat performance ⁽¹⁾.

We note that your letter asks for the agency's position on "these kinds of seats." We assume that in referring to "these kinds of seats" that you are asking for NHTSA's view on seats that deform or "collapse" in a rearward direction in a serious rear impact and whether seats that deform or "yield" in a rear impact are desirable.

For many years, there has been considerable debate among automotive safety experts regarding the level of seat back stiffness. The issues surrounding this debate are quite complex and the agency is assessing the merits of several options related to the modification of the seat standard. We anticipate issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to upgrade this standard next spring. However, as the agency's proposal has not yet been released, we cannot provide you with more specific information at this time.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of this office at

(202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.10/25/01





---

1. ¹( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/crashworthy/Seats/index.html)
( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-01/summaries/B0119.html)

ID: 10119

Mr. Ralph Harpster
Laguna Manufacturing, Inc.
P.O. Box 3236
Turlock, CA 95381

Dear Mr. Harpster:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994, requesting information on whether a "replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars" complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. '30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR '571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR '571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard 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.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle.

Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209.

Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position.

We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area.

A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a "seat belt assembly."

Installation Prior to First Sale

If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. '30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/15/94

ID: nht94-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 15, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Manufacturing, Inc., Turlock, CA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/21/94 from Ralph Harpster to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 10119)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994, requesting information on whether a "replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars" complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversat ion with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifyin g" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth relevant safety standard 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 oc cupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be respo nsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle.

Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The manufactu rer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209.

Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forwa rd-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing re ar outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position.

We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners soli dly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area.

A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installati on would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, or course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it wou ld be considered a "seat belt assembly."

Installation Prior to First Sale

If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor veh icle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used i n the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to inst all a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.