ID: 20334bottleholder

Ms. Christie Skelton
Skelton Design, Inc.
9732 Slater Avenue
Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your inquiry asking about safety regulations for a device you call "the Lil Cub Bottle Holder" for infants and toddlers. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your query follows up on a conversation you had with Deirdre Fujita of my staff. You describe the product as:

a support device for bottle feeding infants and toddlers. It attaches securely onto the car seat or infant carrier with Velcro straps and holds the bottle in a position allowing an infant or toddler to drink when they desire. When properly attached, the bottle can not be dropped or pushed aside; a driver would not need to reach over the seat to rescue a lost bottle. When properly attached, the Lil Cub gently rests around the shoulder harness straps. There is a warning label sewn into the product, which cautions caregivers while attaching the product not to interfere with the child restraint system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, 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 remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those 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.

While it is unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, our statute (at 49 U.S.C. 30122) prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that shoulder harness straps securely restrain a child in a crash. Our standard also has requirements for protection of a child's torso in a crash (S5.2.2). If your bottle holder would cause the child restraint to no longer meet Standard 213, the aforementioned parties may not install the product in new or used vehicles.

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 vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Your product is designed to position a bottle in front of the child while the child is being transported in a vehicle. We are concerned about the possibility of injury caused by a relatively hard object (a bottle) positioned where a child's head, neck or chest could impact it in a crash. In a frontal crash, a positioned bottle could break and cause injury or could otherwise be contacted by a child's head, face, neck or torso and injure the child. We ask you to consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the bottle holder and when instructing consumers how to use the device.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.10/26/99

ID: nht88-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/88

FROM: STEVEN CROWELL

TO: ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- DIR. OF COMMUNICATIONS; EGON BITTNER COMMISSIONER-WALTHAM, MA.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVE C ROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST

TEXT: Commission on Accredidation for Law Enforcement Agencies Inc. 4242b Chain Bridge Rd. Fairfax, Va 22030

Dear Ms. Denniston, Mr. Bittner and Mr. Medeiros;

The automobile interior partitions used in all cruisers I have observed seem to lack some legal requirements.

The Motor Vehicle Safety At of 1966 (U.S. Public Law 89-563) sets forth the following requirements;

49 CFR Ch.V (10/1/86 Edition)

** Sect. 567.7 Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles- A person who alters a vehicle that previously has been certified in accordance with sect 567.4 or 567.5 . . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle , and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label . . . . containing the following information: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all appli cable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year).

** Sect. 571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain vehicle components in the driver's field of view.

** Sect 571.111 Standard 111; Rearview mirrors. This standard specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors . . . to reduce the number of deaths and injuries that occur when the driver does not have a clear and reasonabl y unobstructed view to the rear.

** Sect. 571.201 Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard specifies requirements to afford impact protection for occupants. s3.2 Seat backs-when that area of the seat back that is within the head impact area (head impact area means all nonglazed surfaces of the interior of a vehicle that are statically contactable by a 6.5-inch dimeter spherical head form of a measuring device having a pivot point to "top of head" dimension infinitely adjustable from 29 to 33 inches in accordance with the following proceedure etc.).

** Sect 571.205 Standard No. 205; This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to e nsure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. S5.1.1.3 the following locations are added to the lists specifi ed in ANS Z26 in which item 6 and item 7 safety glazing may be used: (k.1.1.2 Interior partitions).

Your prompt response to my letter of 1/4/88 is greatly appreciated, however I have noticed a slight oversight in Standard 71.4.1 Transport Equipment. Specifically the mention of wire mesh in this recommendation for the use of a "Safety Barrier". To i dentify an interior partiton (the words used by the D.O.T. for this device) as a "safety barrier" is an oxymoron given the safety hazards inherent in the designs currently being used.

Statistics on bodily injury losses occuring in cruisers seem difficult to obtain, but not so for cabs. The graphs enclosed indicate that when and where interior partitions are used in taxis there is enhanced retention of control for the operation of the vehicle accompanied by epidemic increase in accident fatality and bodily injury loss. It seems that the only way to incur more accident fatality in fewer accidents and more injury with less property damage is to introduce occupant impact hazards.

It is my belief that enhancement in the design of interior partitions will still afford the safety of enhanced operator retention of control and additionally reduce the likelyhood of injury to occupants (front or rear compartments) in the event of a s udden stop or collision.

The economic impact of these hazards in the taxi industry in Boston has been astronomical. Prior to the use of interior partitions in Boston taxis (from 1950-1970) the cost of insurance for taxis was only twice that of the cost for private vehicles i n Boston (given that

ID: nht91-4.25

DATE: June 19, 1991

FROM: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rosemary Dunlap (A38; VSA 103(a))

TEXT:

Thank you very much for your letter of June 10 regarding the question of possible federal preemption of state disclosure laws. The information is helpful. I also appreciate your sending a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript from Barry Felrice's Public/Industry meeting.

According to the transcript, Barry stated that NHTSA believes states would have authority to require information disclosure, as long as it was accurate, and IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE.

Auto industry lobbyists raised the issue of disclosure placement in Virginia, which proposed to require disclosure on a window sticker. However, they did not identify the legal cite for their argument. California's pending disclosure bills have a similar provision. Therefore, this is a pressing issue.

For the legal cite for that aspect--whether the sticker could be required to be affixed to the vehicle--Barry invited people to feel free to ask you.

So--to take Barry up on his invitation--would you please refer me to the legal cite concerning requiring disclosure information affixed to the vehicle?

Again, many thanks for your assistance.

Attachment A

FROM TRANSCRIPT OF NHTSA/INDUSTRY MEETING ON JULY 18, 1990

This is a different case. Here we -- there is nothing in federal law that preempts or otherwise prohibits a state from establishing information disclosure requirements as long as the information is accurate and is NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE. And we think there is federal preemption there but if a state wants to provide dealerships provide point of sale information to consumers or that there be information in an owner's manual we believe that they have authority to do that.

And the second part of this question asks, what are our views on such state laws? We would have to give any kind of opinion as to whether a particular state law was good or bad or if we agreed with it based on the specifics of that particular law and I really don't want to give a general statement that we disapprove of the states being in this area.

MR. DANA: AIAM. About petitions -- did you just say as long as that information labeling requirement whatever, IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE VEHICLE?

MR. FELRICE: Yes.

AS LONG AS IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE.

MR. DANA: All right.

MR. FELRICE: AND WHAT THE LEGAL CITE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT IS I DON'T KNOW AND YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO ASK JACK RICE, OUR CHIEF COUNSEL, who said you can say this, Barry.

Now the last questions asks, To what extent we plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups or others in round table meetings?

For instance, in a recent one, we had an issue about lap/shoulder belts. These will be done periodically. Jerry Curry wants to reach out a lot. We've had meetings with insurers, with manufacturers, consumer groups -- the rear seat lap shoulder belt meeting was an interesting one because we sort of had everybody there together: dealers, manufacturers, consumer groups and insurers. We don't have a particular time table that we'll do these. And probably -- I think everyone wants to do them once every six months, once every year, and I think we will continue to do that and as specific subjects come up, like rear seat lap shoulder belt retrofit kits that merit a specific meeting. ...we'll just call it then. So they will be continued but there is no specific schedule for doing that.

And I will answer any other questions.

MR. BENNETT: Milford Bennett, General Motors.

Barry, a follow up on Item 22. Side Impact. BIOSID AND SID...

Attachment B

California Legislature 1991-92 Regular Session Assembly Bill No. 71 (Text omitted)

ID: 8180

Mr. Juan F. Vega
102790
F.S.P.
P.O. Box 747
Starke, FL 32091
U-2-N-9

Dear Mr. Vega:

This responds to your letter addressed to former Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section 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.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:2/16/93

ID: nht93-1.36

DATE: 02/16/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JUAN F. VEGA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO ANDREW CARD

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to former Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b) (1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A). That section 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.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modifications vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht92-8.5

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Single Service Diaphragm Failure Test per FMVSS 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 5/20/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206)

TEXT:

Under the current FMVSS 121 regulation, a diaphragm has been ruled as not being part of a brake chamber housing. The current regulation amendment, which is effective December 9, 1991, states:

In S5.6.6.2 and S5.6.6.3, the test sequence for S5.6.6.1 is as follows: The engine is turned off. Any single leakage type failure in any other brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake chamber housing, but including failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake system, including a diaphragm which is common to the parking brake system and any other brake system) is then introduced in the brake system.

An application actuation of the parking brake control is then made.

Thirty seconds after such actuation, a release actuation of the parking brake control is made. Thirty seconds after the release actuation, a final application actuation of the parking brake control is made.

During this particular test, it is assumed that the diaphragm has been failed. However, there is no determination as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. ITI's testing and years of experience have shown that a hole in a diaphragm starts as a small tear, a wear point between the push rod plate and the diaphragm. By design, the diaphragm has a scrim of layered material interwoven and sandwiched between two pieces of neoprene or rubber.

As the rubber or neoprene wears, a part of the surface wears away, and the scrim material, made of a nylon glass woven material will start to be exposed. This woven material is a rip-stop design which does not allow the diaphragm to rip quickly or cultivate further tearing. Once the rip-stop has been worn by the push rod plate to an 1/8" hole, then any subsequent parking brake application in the ITI system, after such an 1/8" hole, will cause the brake chambers to apply, hold the proper grade as per FMVSS 121, and not be able to release. Original equipment manufacturers generally do not recognize that an 1/8" hole is sufficient to call a diaphragm failed. ITI has tested diaphragms extensively for their tear proclivities, and those test results are found in Exhibit C, attached.

In the ITI system, a hole as small as 1/8" in the diaphragm is detected and the brakes are automatically held in a mechanically locked position by the first parking application after the hole is created. In a spring brake system, a hole in a service diaphragm on the service side of a spring type parking brake goes physically undetected, so that a hole in a spring brake diaphragm can be ripped at 1/8" to 1/2" to 1" and beyond. This design fault in spring brake

systems allows vehicles to be on the highway without proper service brake applications. A soft or weak brake may not even be noticeable to a driver at low air pressure applications. But in the need for a hard application such as in a panic stop, this service diaphragm can be ripped too far, causing the vehicle to go beyond a safe stopping mode.

In the case of the ITI Air Brake System, the system incorporates a constant air check of every component that is designed to hold compressed air. If a component that is designed to hold compressed air has failed, and specifically if a diaphragm has failed, it is detected at the moment of its failure. In the case of the diaphragm, a hole of approximately 1/8" would still allow the brake to be applied, therefore meeting the sequence testing. But an 1/8" hole will not allow the mechanical locking piston to release, therefore holding the retardation force through the second phase of this test sequence. Because the retardation force is being held, the brake remains applied through all phases of the test procedure. By design, the ITI Air Brake chamber cannot develop over 1/8" hole in its parking or service diaphragm. This particular chamber uses one diaphragm to accomplish both tasks.

In a demonstration done at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's offices on October 31, 1991, a failed diaphragm with an 1/8" hole was shown to the following parties: Blaine Laubis, Richard Carter, George Entwistle, Scott Schadle, and Larry Minor.

The demonstration showed clearly that the brakes can be applied with adequate air pressure and mechanically locked. Because the system senses the failure, the chamber cannot be released from that park position, and it will remain applied in a safe failure mode. The demonstration was done because many of the original equipment manufacturers with whom we wish to do business have a problem with the testing sequence of the failed diaphragm, and we hoped that NHTSA would be able to clarify the test procedure and the failed diaphragm parameters. The problems with S5.6.6.1 are as follows:

#1 The size of the failure hole in a diaphragm has not been defined.

#2 The common position of the failure hole in the diaphragm has not been defined.

International Transquip Industries has designed a fail safe mode into their non-spring brake type brake actuator that prevents any vehicle from being put on the road with a hole in the diaphragm greater than 1/8". This design is far superior to the spring brake systems that are now in use on our highways. A hole in a parking diaphragm in a spring brake system may begin or start while the vehicle is in motion. Once that hole starts, air pressure will allow the spring to creep on, possibly causing fires, possibly causing jackknifes, possibly causing a moving vehicle accident. This cannot happen with the ITI Air Brake System. ITI's system prevents spring brake accidents such as the one reported in Docket Part 571 (amended) Docket 87-04 Notice 6 (copy of which is enclosed - Exhibit A).

ITI requires a ruling that will state that an 1/8" hole in a service system diaphragm constitutes a failed diaphragm for the purposes of the test sequence in S5.6.6.3, and that the hole must be placed on the service diaphragm within 1 inch of where the push rod plate meets the diaphragm. A drawing accompanies this letter showing the common area where these failures tend to occur.

(Exhibit B). A hole much larger than 1/8" or placed anywhere else in the diaphragm would not constitute a realistic and valid test. Additionally, in the ITI Air Brake System, the hole in the diaphragm can only be put into the system after the system is fully aired up to 100 psi with all brakes released. The diaphragm must be taken out of the chamber and reinserted with a 1/8" hole for the test procedure as outlined in S5.6.6.3.

It should be borne in mind that the OEM test for all components is performed on new vehicles and all items are to pass a performance test to meet the regulations as outlined in FMVSS 121. It takes up to two million applications for a hole to wear into a diaphragm and therefore the failed diaphragm test under FMVSS 121 does not seem realistically justified. (We recommend that the diaphragm in a brake chamber should be considered a brake chamber component that does not require a separate test under FMVSS 121. If a torn diaphragm is to be tested, then the suggested test and size and placement of the diaphragm tear should be as stated in the previous paragraphs.

Our questions, therefore, for interpretation are:

1. Should a torn diaphragm be considered during a FMVSS 121 test, and if so, should the parameters as requested by ITI of 1/8" tear at one inch from the push rod plate area be used by OEMs for compliance testing?

2. Should other broken components such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, lining and drums be part of the OEMs FMVSS 121 test requirements, based on the premise that a torn diaphragm should be tested?

Your prompt and positive response to these questions will prevent further loss of revenue to our company. Because of the ambiguity of the test procedure, and comments made by NHTSA personnel to OEM inquiries that refer to larger diaphragm failures as "being possible", International Transquip Industries, Inc. has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales to major customers.

Attachments

Exhibit A. Letter dated 3/26/90 from Bob Brinton, owner, Friction Advisory Service, to NHTSA regarding Docket Revision Part 571 (Amended) - Docket #87-04 Notice 6.

Exhibit B. Drawing.

Exhibit C. Summary of Diaphragm Test Results.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.33

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: EDNA SUTLIEF -- PROJECT CONCERN

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER (NHTSA AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE) DATED 9-30-92 FROM EDNA SUTLIEF TO CHARLES GAUTHIER (OCC 7810)

TEXT: This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle.

In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590.

It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at "designated seating positions." The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices.

If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarily or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of "motor vehicle equipment" notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information.

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

ID: 7810

Mrs. Edna Sutlief
Project Concern
504 Kansas Ave.
Atchison, KS 66002

Dear Mrs. Sutlief:

This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle.

In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590.

It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at "designated seating positions." The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices.

If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarilly or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of "motor vehicle equipment" notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#209 d:11/13/92

ID: nht93-8.30

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack McIntyre -- Vice President, Tie Tech Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack and (OCC-9123) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position...." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.44

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Crane -- Calspan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from Donald J. Crane to Mary Versailles (OCC 8610).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 26, 1993, on Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS. You request a determination of whether a seat manufactured by a client of yours is a "seat having a back that is, adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." Such a seat is excepted by S4.3 of Standard No. 207 from the strength requirements in S4.3.2.2 for seat back restraining devices. The seat in question has an angle of 24 degrees, and can recline from that position 39 degrees 30' forward and 58 degrees rearward.

With respect to the rearward folding of your seat, the answer to your question is yes, the seat is excepted from S4.3.2.2. However, the seat is not excepted from S4.3.2.2 with respect to forward folding.

The exception at issue was adopted in response to a petition by the Rover Company, who requested special treatment for a seat with a back that had a range of adjustment from 77 degrees to the horizontal down to 19 degrees to the horizontal. In creating the exception for the type of seat described by Rover, the agency included seats with backs that folded until they were substantially horizontal. The seat your client manufactures has a similar rearward folding range as Rover, and therefore, does not require a restraining device for the rearward folding of the seat back.

However, the exception created in response to the Rover petition does not cover the forward folding of your seat. A seat having a back that folds for the occupant's comfort, but that also folds in another manner is required to have a restraining device for the second folding mode. It does not appear that the forward-folding mode of the seat back is only for the comfort of the seat occupant. Therefore, your client's seat would be required to have a restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back.

You also asked if our interpretation would be different if the vehicle was a 2-door type. Our interpretation regarding the restraining device exception would not change. However, you should note that the front seat would be required by S4.3(b) to have a control for releasing the restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back, if there is another seat behind it.

You also asked if your client's seat is a "full-flat seat," a term used by your client. As Ms. Versailles of my staff discussed with you, we are uncertain about the meaning of this term. If your client can provide further information about the seat, please contact us.

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