ID: nht94-3.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Barbara Pietra -- Dabble, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, Office of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Barbara Pietra (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Several months ago I spoke with you about the Cair Bag I was developing. This product is designed to be used by children in an automobile (or airplane) who have outgrown their child restraint system (car seat or booster seat). This product allows a chi ld to rest or sleep more comfortably, keeping their seat belt positioned properly.

In the course of consideration of this product the legal department of Toyota USA has asked me to obtain a letter from you stating that the Cair Bag is not a child restraint system as described in FMVSS No. 213. I spoke with Dee Fujita, Esq. and Susan S tack last Friday, who referred me to you.

In the course of the development of this product I spoke to Patricia Breslin, Veronica Ferguson, Carolyn Jeeter of NHTSA, Cheryl Neverman, Susan Stack and Paul Snodgrass of the Department of Transportation, Art Hayes of the FAA and Cecil Smith of the US Products Consumer Safety Commission. Mr. Cecil Smith stated I should state on the label that this product is not intended for use by children under the age of 24 months. Everyone else I spoke with felt this was a great product and the only requirement would be that it not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt, which it dos not do. I felt it was necessary to further state that it is not intended for use by children under 40 pounds, to make it clear that this product is not in tended to compete with or in any way replace child restraint systems (car seats and booster seats).

Great care was taken in designing the Cair Bag product; keeping foremost in mind the comfort, safety and reliability of this product. The Cair Bag is a very lightweight (approximately one pound), under-stuffed styrene pellet bag with a removable, washab le cotton fabric outer bag. The Cair Bag is attached to the lap portion of the seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap.

When the child gets tired, he can attach the Cair Bag and lean into it, keeping the shoulder and lap belts positioned properly. This product would help to prevent the child from lying down on the seat of the car with the seat belt improperly, uncomforta bly and dangerously positioned.

The weight of the Cair Bag is distributed over the lap of the child, eliminating its force on the lap portion of the seat belt. Because the filling is very moldable in nature, the Cair Bag adapts to the legs and upper body of the child maintaining the proper positioning of the seat belt; taught across the lap and shoulder of the child.

Several months ago a representative from NHTSA sent me the enclosed excerpts from the "Child Passenger Safety Resource Manual". At that time it was determined that the Cair Bag would not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt. Since that time, I have been informed that this product should be recommended for use by children over 50 pounds as to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system. All literature will be changed to show this recommendation.

In conclusion, this product is desparately needed to aid in the comfort and safety of children who rest or sleep in the car. It can be seen as a comfort pillow and direct claims will not be made about the safety factor.

I have enclosed a copy of the label which will be attached to the Cair Bag, several photographs showing how children lie down on the car seat and the literature designed for Toyota for you evaluation.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this product at (310) 471-5242.

Attachments Cair Bag label. Cair Bag brochure.

ID: nht87-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lewis H. Goldfarb -- Assistant General Counsel, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lewis H. Goldfarb, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, Michigan 48288

This responds to your letters asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, with regard to a design you are considering producing. You asked whether the standard's requirement that identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver would be met by an electronic display that is activated for three minutes after the driver's door b open, whenever the key is in the ignition switch, and for three minutes after the key is removed from the ignition switch. You later asked about a variation of the proposed design. Noting that drivers sometimes leave the key in the ignition switch for long per iods of time, you stated that you planned to incorporate a timing device which would shut off the illumination after 15 minutes if the key is left in the ignition switch and the ignition switch remained in either the "lock" or "off" position. As discusse d below, it is our opinion that neither of your proposed designs would meet the standard's requirement for permanent display in view of the driver.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 requires that the "(i)identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added) NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an elect ronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch.

Your letter raises the issue of whether it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the car, even if the ignition is not turned on. is our opinion that is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requireme nt that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions be "permanently displayed" is modified by the phrase "in view of the driver." It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., n o person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however. that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remaine d activated for a specific period of time, such as three minutes or 15 minutes, it would not be "permanently" displayed.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 7, 1986 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Re: Confirmation of Interpretation of MVSS 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect

Dear Erika:

Chrysler Motors Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation that the PRNDL display in a new electronic cluster we are designing for one of our 1990 model vehicles meets the requirements of paragraph S3.2 of MVSS 102, "Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect." That paragraph states in part that "Identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver."

We believe this provision is intended to provide that the PRNDL should be displayed to a person in the driving position for the purpose of operating the vehicle. It is not intended, however, to require the display of the PRNDL when there is no one engage d in operating or "driving" the vehicle and where the continuous lighting of an electronic PRNDL display would be a serious drain on the vehicle's battery.

In our new electronic instrument cluster design, the PRNDL display illuminates and displays the transmission gear position as soon as the driver's door is opened. This feature provides the driver an immediate indication of the position of the transmissio n gear selector just as does a conventional "mechanical" PRNDL indicator. With our design the transmission gear selector position will continue to be lighted if the ignition key is inserted into the ignition lock cylinder within approximately three minut es. The only difference between our electronic PRNDL display and a mechanical one is that, to save battery strength when the vehicle is not being driven, our electronic indicator will turn off after three minutes unless the driver inserts the key in the ignition key cylinder.

Should the PRNDL display turn off after a three minute period, however, inserting the ignition key will cause it to come on immediately, and it will remain on as long as the key is in the ignition switch. The three minute period is more than sufficient t ime to allow the driver to get settled in the seat, fasten the safety belt, and insert the ignition key. When the trip is completed and the key is removed from the ignition lock, the PRNDL display remains lighted for approximately three minutes while the driver unfastens safety belts, picks up articles, exits, and locks the vehicle.

We believe that the design of our electronic PRNDL display meets the intent as well as the needs of motor vehicle safety as stated in the requirements of paragraph S3.2 of MVSS 102.

In summary, the shift lever position will be displayed to the driver while the driver enters the vehicle, while the ignition key is in the ignition lock, and while the driver exits the vehicle.

We would appreciate your early consideration and confirmation of this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Lewis H. Goldfarb

CC: R. O. Sornson

ID: aiam2854

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your July 19, 1978, letter asking whether the State o California is preempted from requiring that all seats in school buses be forward facing.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance.; Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection* specifies that seats shall be forward facing except seats designed to transport the handicapped. Seats for the handicapped may be side facing to permit ease of access. The California standard requiring forward facing seats regulates the same aspect of performance, seat orientation, as the Federal standard. Since the California standard is not identical to the Federal standard and, in fact, conflicts the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it is preempted.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4610

"Mr. R. Yamauchi Seat Belt Engineering Department Nippon Seiko K.K. 12 Kirihara-cho Fujisawa, JAPAN Dear Mr. Yamauchi: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in responding. Your questions concerned a seat belt assembly that is designed with a dual mode retractor. The retractor for this system generally functions as an emergency locking retractor (ELR). However, the retractor can be converted to an automatic locking retractor (ALR) to facilitate securing a child restraint at that seating position. The retractor converts from an ELR to an ALR when the webbing is completely extended. The retractor converts back to an ELR when most of the webbing has been retracted. You posed the following questions. 1. Is this retractor considered an ELR? If so, is it required to comply with the performance requirements for ELR's, or is it required to comply with the performance requirements for both ELR's and ALR's? Response: Your letter did not provide sufficient information to allow us to answer this question. However, in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald Schwentker, we explained the criteria we use to determine whether a dual mode retractor such as you described is considered an ELR or an ALR for the purposes of our safety standards. To briefly restate the criteria, section S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 specifies adjustment requirements for all seat belt assemblies. We examine the functioning of the retractor during normal operation by occupants within the weights and dimensions set forth in S4.1(g)(3) of Standard No. 209. If 100 percent extension of the webbing is likely to occur during normal operation of the belt assembly by those occupants (thereby converting the retractor into an ALR), the retractor would be considered an ALR. If during normal operation of the belt assembly by the specified occupants the retractor would function exclusively as an ELR, the retractor would be considered an ELR. Using these criteria, the length of the webbing used in the belt assembly will ultimately determine whether a dual mode retractor would be considered an ELR. If the webbing is long enough that a 95th percentile adult male would not extend the webbing 100 percent during normal operations (including fastening and unfastening the belt or leaning forward to adjust the radio or other controls on the instrument panel), the retractor would operate exclusively as an ELR and would be treated as such for the purposes of our safety standards. If, on the other hand, normal operations by a 95th percentile adult male would result in 100 percent extension of the webbing, the retractor would be considered an ALR for the purposes of our standards. Your letter did not provide any information about the length of the webbing to be used in the belt assembly, so we cannot offer any opinion about whether the retractor for the belt assembly would be considered an ELR or an ALR. 2. You noted that section S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209 requires that ELRs be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. You stated if dual mode retractors were treated as ELRs, this requirement would present serious problems, since 100 percent webbing extension would convert the retractor to an ALR and the subsequent retraction to 50 percent extension would not convert the retractor back to an ELR. Hence, when the webbing returned to 50 percent extension after 100 percent extension, the retractor would be an ALR. In this mode, the retractor would lock the webbing at 50 percent extension and no further cycles would be possible. To avoid this problem, you asked if you could test the retractor by subjecting it to 45,000 additional cycles between 0 percent extension and 100 percent extension. You asserted that this testing should be permitted, because it is a more stringent test of the retractor. Response: This question may reflect a misunderstanding of the differing responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer that is certifying compliance with a safety standard and on the agency when it is testing for compliance with a safety standard. You, as a manufacturer, are not required to conduct testing before certifying that your belt assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise 'due care' in making such certifications. It is up to the manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards. If a manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, the manufacturer is free to modify any or all parts of the test procedure specified in the standard, provided that the manufacturer can show that the results obtained using these modified test procedures are sufficient to satisfy the 'due care' standard. You have the responsibility in the first instance to decide whether the substitution of an alternative test is sufficient to establish due care in making certifications based on this modification of the standard. This determination involves assessing whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard. When the agency conducts its compliance testing, however, it is required to follow the compliance tests specified in the applicable standard. Thus, the agency would not substitute cycles between 0 and 100 percent extension for the cycles between 50 and 100 percent extension that are specified in Standard No. 209. If this retractor were treated as an ELR for purposes of Standard No. 209, applying the criteria set forth above in response to your first question, we would test the retractor solely as an ELR. To do this, we would disengage or disconnect the features that convert the retractor to an ALR at 100 percent webbing extension. The retractor would then be tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 1982-2.37

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kamlot Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlo Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136

Dear Mr. Braden:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding "plush" seats and a rear sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.

You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear of the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Would you please send me a letter regarding the proper seat belts to be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. The vans are being remanufactured with plush seats (4), a rear sofa, bay windows, and carpeted. When finished they are a 7-passenger vehicle, under 10,000 lbs. GVW.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Terry W. Braden President

ID: 7669

Richard Allison
Program Manager
The Bott Group, Inc.
32330 Howard Avenue
Michigan Heights, MI 48071

Dear Mr. Allison:

This responds to your letter of August 20, 1992 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. Specifically, you requested "an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks)."

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test either without the roof rack installed or with the roof rack removed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2. The second condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned using the point of contact established under test condition 1. The third condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2 to the roof rack. You requested our interpretation as to which is the correct test condition. In addition, you asked if we determined that either test condition 2 or 3 was correct, could the amount of distance traveled before contact with the roof be added to the allowable distance of test device travel under S4.

We would conduct our compliance testing for Standard No. 216 with roof mounted accessories such as roof racks removed (your test condition 1). We would do so because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, as you have noted, conducting the test with roof mounted accessories in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

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

ref:216 d:9/21/92

ID: nht92-3.46

DATE: September 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/20/92 from Richard Allison to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7669)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 20, 1992 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. Specifically, you requested "an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks)."

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test either without the roof rack installed or with the roof rack removed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2. The second condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned using the point of contact established under test condition 1. The third condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2 to the roof rack. You requested our interpretation as to which is the correct test condition. In addition, you asked if we determined that either test condition 2 or 3 was correct, could the amount of distance traveled before contact with the roof be added to the allowable distance of test device travel under S4.

We would conduct our compliance testing for Standard No. 216 with roof mounted accessories such as roof racks removed (your test condition 1). We would do so because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, as you have noted, conducting the test with roof mounted accessories in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

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: aiam5317

Dear Ms Dawson: This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of thi office in which you posed two questions regarding interpretation of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Your first question related to the definition of 'daylight opening' found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked what constitutes an obstruction and how close does it have to be to the exit to be considered an obstruction. The term 'daylight opening' is defined in the Final Rule as 'the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.' This refers to the total area of the opening, whether the door or window is open or closed. An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with in any way that opening or any access thereto, as viewed from the middle aisle of the bus. For example, the seatback of a nearby seat that protrudes into the area perpendicular to the plane of the opening would constitute such an obstruction. In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was changed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes. S5.2.3.1, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door and, in the sequence of choices for providing the additional emergency exit area, the first specifies a left side door that is required by S5.2.3.2(a)(2) to be located at the midpoint of the bus. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does not designate a specific location for them. Thus, the locations of exits other than the left side door specified in S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) are left to the various design options of the manufacturers and their customers. I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief counsel;

ID: aiam2496

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request fo confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.; When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of 'contact area' the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represent splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the nead or knee form.; In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicl standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.; However, the requirementk that the seating conform as it is installe does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.; In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does no intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: Merritt_letter

Mr. J. Shayne Merritt
Director, Automotive Safety Program
Riley Hospital for Children
575 West Drive, Room 004
Indianapolis, IN 46202




Dear Mr. Merritt:

This responds to your letter asking for permission to use a Britax Two-Way Plus child restraint, a Swedish car seat that is sold in Europe, in the United States for a patient with unique healthcare needs.

In your letter, you state that the patient is a 3-year-old who weighs over 35 pounds (lb), with a diagnosis of Pentalogy of Cantrell. You explain that this condition is a very rare disorder that is characterized by the absence of a sternum and accompanying ribs, resulting in the patients heart and lungs being completely unprotected. The medical staff at Riley Hospital has determined that she must continue to ride rear-facing until after her surgery next year.The child has reached the maximum weight of the rear-facing convertible seat she is currently using. You state that the child fits a Britax Two-Way Plus seat that will allow her to ride rear-facing until she reaches the design limits of the restraint.

Please note that the use of child restraints, the specific subject of your letter, is governed by State law. Thus, your request for permission to use the Two-Way Plus for this patient should be addressed to state officials. However, the importation of child restraints into this country is governed by Federal law and is within the responsibility of this agency. This letter provides assistance in obtaining the child restraint for your patient.

By way of background, we are authorized (46 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.)(the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Child restraint systems must conform to Standard No. 213 to be sold in this country. It is our understanding that the Two-Way Plus does not meet Standard No. 213 because, among other things, it cannot meet the standards performance requirements when attached to the vehicle seat with the seat belt alone. The restraint needs to lean against the vehicles dashboard when used with an older child (when installed at the front passenger seating position) or against the backs of the two front seats (when installed in a rear seating position). When a requirement is specified in a Federal safety standard, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not explicitly provide for individual medical exemptions from that prohibition.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical condition of your patient. We will not institute enforcement proceedings against the person bringing a Two-Way Plus into this country for the child, subject to the following caveats.

We understand that the instructions for the Two-Way Plus indicate that the restraint must always contact the dashboard when used rear-facing in the front seat. A rear-facing child restraint must not be used in a front passenger seat if there is a passenger-side air bag. A deploying air bag impacting the back of the child restraint could subject the child to severe or fatal head or neck injuries. Thus, if an air bag is present in the front position, it is imperative that the rear-facing restraint be used in a rear seat. The restraint must have a prominent warning, of the type required by S5.5.2(k)(4) of Standard No. 213, not to use the restraint rear-facing in the front seat with a passenger-side air bag. (If a vehicle does not have a rear seat or has a rear seat that is too small to accommodate the installation of a rear-facing child restraint system, the vehicle owner may apply for an on-off switch for the passenger air bag. Enclosed is a brochure that provides information about air bag on-off switches and a request form you can fax or mail to our agency to obtain permission for the installation of a switch.)

In a rear designated seating position, the Two-Way Plus rests against the backs of the front seats, presumably for support against tumbling backwards (relative to the child) in a frontal crash. The manufacturer of the vehicle that the child will be riding in should be consulted to ensure that the vehicle seats would be strong enough to support the child restraint in a crash.

We also ask that the Two-Way Plus be used only for your patient, and that it not be sold or given away when the child outgrows it. There should also be a label on the restraint that the restraint is not certified as meeting Standard No. 213.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.4/24/06