ID: aiam5298

Dear Mr. McCue: This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of thi agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response. The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on 'how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant 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, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standards No. 208 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, is responsible for certifying compliance to these standards. Standard No. 209, however, 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. Standard No. 209 defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a 'seat belt assembly,' and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold. If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehicle. If the device was added to a new ambulance 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. I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our understanding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and 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. 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 section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. 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. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law. In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limits the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment. You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3631

Dear Mr. Mathieson: This responds to your September 13, 1982, letter concerning you 'vandalock' system and Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Section S5.2.3.2 states that 'the engine starting system of a schoo bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purpose of this requirement, 'locked' means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.' You state that your locking mechanism, which is a bolt device, doesn't meet the definition of 'locked' since it requires neither a key nor special instructions. You further indicate that the engine will not start until the bolt is withdrawn.; We disagree that your bolt when in the closed position would not mee the definition of locked. The door would not be capable of opening from the outside without the use of special devices when the bolt was closed. Accordingly, the door would be considered locked.; However, nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation o locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the door in the locked position. As you noted, your vandalock system is designed to prevent the starting of a vehicle in such circumstances.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2865

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multi-purpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does requir side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side- facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2867

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does require sid facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1602

Dear Mr. Bader: This is to respond to the draft defect notification letter submitted b B. F. Goodrich at a meeting with NHTSA personnel on September 4, 1974. While we provided you with some preliminary comments at that time, our position regarding your notification is as stated in this letter.; We believe your letter fails to comply with 49 CFR, Part 577, 'Defec Notification' in several respects. Some of our comments are also directed at what we view as a lack of clarity in your letter arising, it seems to us, from some disorganization in the text.; The first sentence in your second paragraph does not follo satisfactorily the requirements of S 577.4(b)(1). This requirement should be met by simply stating, 'The B. F. Goodrich Tire Company has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in its Space Saver Spare tire.'; Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to describe the defect b including specified information. We believe your letter confuses the items of information and presents them in an order which clouds an understanding of the safety problem. As we understand your presentation of the facts, the item of motor vehicle equipment affected (S 577.4(c)(1)) is the tire, the malfunction that may occur (S 577.4(c)(2)) is an explosion of the tire, and the operating or other conditions that may cause the malfunction to occur (S 577.4(c)(3)) are damaged beads, excessive air pressure, and beads not seated properly on the rim. With respect to this latter requirement, we find the reference to the 'combination' of factors in your second paragraph, and your fourth paragraph, in which you state that 'some or all' of the causal conditions listed can produce the defect, to be inconsistent and too imprecise to conform to the requirement. In addition to describing factors which can singly cause an explosion, if certain combinations of factors must exist in order for the defect to occur these combinations should not be stated generally as you have done, but should be specifically described. Moreover, we indicated to you at the September 4 meeting that we disagree that broken beads and excessive pressure must exist in combination in order for an explosion to occur.; Most importantly, we cannot agree upon your characterization of th bolting of the tire to the wheel before inflation as a precaution the owner can take to reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur under S 577.4(c)(4). Both literally and by implication your second and fourth paragraphs read that if the tire is bolted to the vehicle before inflation, an explosion will not occur. The malfunction, however, is an explosion of the tire, not only those explosions which cause injury. While we agree that bolting the tire to the vehicle before inflation can potentially reduce the chance of injury, it should be characterized only in this fashion. Therefore, both on page 1 of your letter and in the instructions which you begin on page 3 for persons who have need of the tire before its inspection by Goodrich, you must make it absolutely clear that bolting the tire to the vehicle has no effect whatever on whether the tire will explode, but that bolting will serve only to reduce the chance of injury if an explosion occurs.; We have the following points with respect to the remaining provision of your letter. On page 2, in the first complete paragraph, beginning 'In the majority of usage situation...etc,' we find the use of the word 'majority' confusing. The implication to us is that in a minority of situations the danger is not reduced at all. This should be clarified.; The third complete paragraph on page 2 is also confusing. There is n apparent connection between its first and second sentences. If you are attempting to say that despite what earlier labels may say that the instructions provided in this letter should be followed, then this can be stated more clearly.; The use of the word 'solely' in the fourth paragraph on page 2 is disclaimer, prohibited by section 577.6, and should be stricken.; On page 3, we believe the requirements of section 577.4(e)(1) call fo more detail than you have provided in the third paragraph on page 3. We suggest you include a description of the inspection and test cycle. As we indicated to you on September 4, the second and third paragraphs could be combined for clarity. Finally, the second sentence in your second paragraph on page 3 should be reworded to indicate more clearly that the date you have inserted is the date by which repair facilities will have necessary parts and instructions. In its present wording the meaning of the sentence is unclear.; Apart from these deficiencies, we believe your letter conforms to 4 CFR Part 577. At the same time, we believe your letter unnecessarily obscures the safety problem, and hope that, apart from literal compliance with Part 577, this is eliminated in the letter sent to purchasers. You should note that our determination of the conformity of the letter to Part 577 does not in any way indicate our agreement with Goodrich's analysis of the safety defect. We will continue to look into this matter, as appropriate, in order to determine whether Goodrich's analysis of the defect, and its consequent remedy, are fair and accurate statements of the safety problem. You should be aware that if subsequent events do show that attributing the safety defect to a mounting problem does not adequately describe the defect, further notification may be required.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3898

Dear Mr. Shimizu: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1984, concerning th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You noted that section S4.1(e) of the standard provides that 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or *buckles* readily accessible to the occupant....' [Emphasis added.] You asked whether the standard would permit a seat belt assembly with two buckles as shown in the schematic attached to your letter. The answer is that while Standard No. 209 would permit such an assembly, whether such an assembly can be installed in a particular vehicle is determined by Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protectio of occupants in a crash. Section S4.1.2.3.1 provides that Type 2 lap and shoulder belt systems used in passenger cars must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. Likewise, S4.2.2 provides that certain trucks and buses with Type 2 belts must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. The belt system you illustrated in your diagram consists of one continuous loop of webbing which serves as both the lap and shoulder belt. However, your design provides a separate buckle for the shoulder anchorage and thus an occupant could release the shoulder buckle and use the belt solely as a lap belt. Thus, we would not consider your design to have a nondetachable shoulder belt.; In addition, section S7.2 of the standard sets requirements for th latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism used in those vehicles must release at a single point. Therefore, a two buckle system could not be used in those vehicles.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4958

"Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter asking how the laws an regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you have invented. The device is a flexible plastic stalk that reroutes the shoulder belt to improve the shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, your company is not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the product for sale. In addition, you are not required to get some sort of 'approval' from this agency before offering this product for sale. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this product is not subject to any safety standard, so your company does not have to make any certification. Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this product, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that you were aware of this responsibility and your company would carry out any necessary recalls if problems should become apparent with this device when it is used by the public. In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be 'rendered inoperative' by the use of your company's belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop. I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5079

"Dear Mr. Vacanti: This responds to your letter seeking information o how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you have designed. According to your letter, this device is an aftermarket accessory. The accessory is a polyurethane device that latches onto the lap/shoulder belt and changes the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses a child's torso. The device is intended to improve shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale. In addition, you are not required to get some sort of 'approval' from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification. Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be 'rendered inoperative' by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop. I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ";

ID: alliancerecords.ztv

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 2003, asking for an interpretation of the early warning reporting (EWR) rule, 49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C, with respect to the updating of certain information under Section 579.28(f).

You pointed out that under a NHTSA recordkeeping regulation, 49 CFR 576.5(b), manufacturers must retain, for five years, all the "underlying records" that form the basis for EWR information submitted under Part 579. You asked us to confirm your understanding that "manufacturers must update previously submitted information on fatalities or injuries pursuant to Section 579.28(f) for a period of five years from the quarter in which the fatality or injury was initially submitted to NHTSA." You argued that, in view of the need (explained at a public meeting held on June 19, 2003) to submit updates as part of a resubmission of the entire Excel workbook containing fatality and injury information, "reporting updates beyond that time is inconsistent with the recordkeeping requirement." We confirm your understanding, and note that it is extremely unlikely that a manufacturer would have to update any such reports at such a late date.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:576#579
d.9/4/03

ID: aiam2170

Dear Mr. Erne: This responds to your December 12, 1975, question whether Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, requires a restraining device for side-facing folding seats that are to (sic) used in buses and van-type vehicles.; Subsection S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 207 requires that side-facin folding seats be equipped with a restraining device, unless the seat is a 'passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.'; A 'bus' is defined by Section 571.3 as a 'motor vehicle with motiv power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Therefore, in order to come within the 'bus' exception of S4.3, the vehicle must be designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Otherwise a restraining device is required.; A 'van-type' vehicle is either a 'bus', a 'multi-purpose passenge vehicle,' or a 'truck,' depending on the number of designated seating positions. If the vehicle is designed for 10 persons or less, it is a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, not a bus, and S4.3 requires a restraining device for side-facing folding seats.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel