ID: nht74-3.33

DATE: 09/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a new model Bunny Bear child seat ("Sweetheart Seat II") must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ("for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone") and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ("by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches"). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another.

We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier, to be a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position.

We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attempt to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, "[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another," adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position.

In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the proposed certification statement appears on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers.

Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.

July 25, 1974

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213.

For several years, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. has provided technical consulting and testing services to Bunny Bear, Inc. of Everett, Massachusetts, among other child seat manufacturers. Bunny Bear is now in the process of introducing to the market an unusual new child seat. In accordance with its customary practice, Bunny Bear has solicited BBN's opinion as to whether its new seat meets all requirements of FMVSS 213.

The new seat is convertible from a semirecumbent infant carrier to an upright child seat, and is designed to eliminate the need for purchasing two different restraint systems as a child grows. In its child seat mode, it is a conventional forward-facing child seat. In its infant carrier mode, however, it is installed so that the child sits in a semirecumbent position with its spine oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the automobile. The seat label and instructions state explicitly that it is to be used in the semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode only for infants weighing less than 15 lbs and unable to sit upright by themselves.

S2 of FMVSS 213 states that "This standard does not apply . . . to systems for use only by recumbent or semirecumbent children." S4.11.1(b) requires that "A child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable pursuant to the instructions provided in accordance with paragraph S4.2 shall meet these requirements at each designed adjustment position."

The question that concerns us here is whether FMVSS 213 is applicable to this child seat when it is used in its semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode. The answer to this question appears to hinge upon whether the two modes of seat use are viewed as separate types of seating systems or merely as different adjustment positions.

We believe that the semirecumbent mode does not represent a different adjustment position as that term is used in S4.11.1(b), but rather represents a conversion of the seat for use exclusively by semirecumbent infants weighing less than 15 lbs. This conversion will occur only once, when the child's weight reaches 15 lbs; the seat will not be adjusted back and forth from one mode to the other.

On the basis of this reasoning, we have advised Bunny Bear that we do not believe that FMVSS 213 applies to the seat when used in its semi-recumbent sideways-facing mode. We would appreciate your comments regarding the correctness of our interpretation, since, if it is not correct, we must devise some method of conducting performance tests for the seat when used in its infant carrier mode.

Duncan C. Miller

Samuel Linden, Bunny Bear, Inc.

Bunny Bear, Inc.

August 14, 1974

Micheal Peskoe National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

As you know, Dr. Duncan Miller of Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. has contacted you on behalf of Bunny Bear, Inc. requesting clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213 to our new car seat when used in the semirecumbent infant carrier position and placed laterally on the automobile seat.

Dr. Miller has asked me to send you a copy of our instructions to help you in your evaluation of the child seating system.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the instruction booklet which, of course, will not be printed until the final clarification has been made. This is merely a copy of the proof. The information will illustrate exactly how this item is used.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Samuel Linden Executive Vice President

cc: Duncan Miller

Bunny Bear

AMERICA'S OLDEST MANUFACTURER OF NURSERY NECESSITIES SINCE 1918

NURSERY LANE

EVERETT, MASS. 02149

INSTRUCTIONS

THE SWEETHEART SEAT II (trademark)

THIS SEAT IS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Please read thoroughly and follow carefully all instructions so that all safety features designed and built into this seat will be effective.

The certification label attached to the back or bottom contains important information which must be followed for proper use of this child's seat. Please do not remove this label

Use only in passenger cars at seating positions having an adult seat belt which can be used as per instructions given inside.

NOT FOR USE AT SEATING POSITIONS WHERE AN AUTO SHOULDER BELT IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE AUTO LAP BELT.

WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS CHILD SEAT BE USED IN THE CENTER OF THE REAR SEAT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THIS WILL PROVIDE INCREASED PROTECTION FOR THE CHILD.

Always loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another.

Be sure shoulder straps go through bottom slot in seat back when used in infant carrier position and through the top slot when used in the full upright position. (See instructions inside).

The strap in back of the child seat connecting the top and bottom frames, should always be centered on the bottom frame. It spreads the distribution of impact forces when child seat is used in upright position.

FASTENING CHILD INTO INFANT CARRIER OR UPRIGHT POSITION

1. When used in infant carrier position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the bottom slot in the child seat back. (See Diagram C-1)

2. When used in the upright sitting position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the top slot in the child seat back. (Diagram C-1).

To change shoulder straps from one slot to another simply pull ends of shoulder straps through adjustment slides -- one on each shoulder strap -- releasing them from the harness system. Then pull straps back through the slot they are in and thread through other slot back to front. Rethread ends of web through slots of eye loops and then through adjustment slides - reconnecting the harness system. (Diagram C-2 & C-3).

(Graphics omitted)

3. With snap buckle released and 5 point harness system loose, place child in infant carrier or in upright position. (Diagram C-4).

4. Place the shoulder straps one over each shoulder of the child. (C-4).

5. Bring each end of lap belt together so that the eyes of the metal loops - one on each end of the lap belt -- overlap on top of each other, aligning the holes. (Diagram C-5).

6. Bring tongue of snap buckle through the eyes of the metal loops and snap together securely. (Diagram C-5).

7. All belts have adjustment slides (C2). Adjust lap belt and crotch strap to fit around child's hips and lap, not around child's waist. Adjust straps to fit as snugly as possible and still be comfortable Leave one inch of space between shoulder straps and child's chest. (C6).

8. Bring ends of all straps back through slides for added locking strength. (Diagram C-3).

(Graphics omitted)

ID: BlueBird2point.drn

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P. O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, and the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that Blue Bird is investigating the feasibility, legality and practicability of equipping school bus passenger seats with Type 2 seat belt assemblies (lap and shoulder belt systems). You ask three questions about how our requirements may affect this endeavor.

Some background concerning school buses might be helpful in addressing your questions. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued Standard No. 222, which provides for school bus passenger crash protection through the "compartmentalization" concept. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. The seats must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet be flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must be constructed by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. On large school buses (gross vehicle weight greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds)), compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection without the use of seat belts.

In the absence of a specific design proposal, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether a lap and shoulder belt system can be attached to existing school bus seats without reducing the benefits of compartmentalization during a crash. We also have limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or otherwise affect the current safety of school buses. I have enclosed a copy of our October 28, 1999, letter to Mr. Gilbert A. Perea, which contains a more detailed discussion of our concerns about attaching a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also has begun an extensive research program to study occupant protection systems for school bus passengers. One objective of the plan is to improve current school bus crash data to better define the types of crashes that produce injuries to occupants in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current Federal crash protection requirements.

The research plan also will evaluate new school bus occupant crash protection systems in controlled laboratory tests that represent real-world crashes. Based on those tests, NHTSA may propose new occupant protection requirements for school buses if overall safety can be improved.

Turning now to your questions, you first ask:

Question One: "As a manufacturer of school buses, is Blue Bird prohibited from installing Type 2 seat belts on the passenger seats in buses manufactured and sold as school buses based on the [make inoperative] provision cited above?"

You refer to 30122 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), which prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from making modifications that "make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on a new or used vehicle would be subject to penalties of up to $1,100 per violation and injunctive relief.

In answer to your question, 30122 would prohibit Blue Bird from installing Type 2 belts if such a modification would cause a seating system already in compliance with Standard No. 222, or any other applicable FMVSS, to no longer comply. Note that 30122 only applies to a vehicle that has been previously certified as in compliance with the FMVSS, and that 30115 prohibits you as a manufacturer from certifying vehicles that do not comply with all applicable FMVSS. Similarly, 30112 prohibits the sale of noncomplying buses.

Neither Standard No. 222 nor our statute directly prohibits the installation of Type 2 belts for passengers in large school buses. If you can install these belts and preserve the school bus' compliance with all applicable FMVSSs, you may do so. As previously explained, however, we are concerned that the incorporation of shoulder belts into existing school bus seats could reduce crash protection.

Question Two: "Does the [make inoperative] provision prohibit the after-market installation of Type 2 seat belts and/or restraining bars or other devices attached to school bus seat backs and does the agency intend to actively enforce this provision?"

As stated above, the make inoperative provision does not prohibit the installation of belts or restraining bars per se, as long as the modified school bus can meet all applicable Federal safety standards. We do not believe, however, that Type 2 seat belts or restraining bars are generally compatible with existing school bus seats. We are currently investigating these and other occupant protection issues in our school bus safety research program. With respect to enforcement, we intend to actively pursue any violations of law that adversely affect the safety of children on school buses.

Question Three: "Would federal law preempt a state from requiring Type 2 seat belt assemblies on the passenger seats of new school buses they purchase."

Section 30103(b) of our statute states that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, that section provides that a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for vehicles or equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard.

States would be preempted from requiring Type 2 belts on large school buses procured for the State's own use if the belts would cause the bus to not meet Federal school bus standards and thereby result in a lower level of safety performance than that required by the standards. Therefore, if installing Type 2 belts would either make a new school bus not able to meet Standard No. 222 or would "make inoperative" the compliance of a previously certified school bus with Standard No. 222, the State requirement would be preempted.⁽¹⁾

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:222
d.7/12/00

1. We note that this letter does not affect our interpretation letter of February 20, 1987, to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin of the New York State Department of Transportation. In that letter, we stated that NHTSA's laws do not preempt a New York state law that requires passenger belts on N.Y. public school buses. In the context of the Chauvin letter, we were discussing lap belts only, and not Type 2 belts. The lap belts did not prevent school buses from meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht95-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1995

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

TO: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM RANDAL K. BUSICK TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10694)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking three questions regarding the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your first question concerns S4.3 of Standard No. 210 which states, "(anchorages) for seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section." You asked whether a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position with an air bag is considered a seat belt assembly that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1. Assuming that the vehicle is certified to the requirements of Stand ard No. 208 using the air bag, the answer is yes.

Your second question asks what is meant by the phrases "belt bears upon the seat frame" and "does not bear upon the seat frame" in S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 of Standard No. 210. You stated that examples would be useful. NHTSA has previously said that the p hrase "bears upon the seat frame" "refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat." n1 If a more specific answer is needed in the context of a specific design, please send us infor mation on the design in question.

n1 August 25, 1981, letter to Mr. Roger E. Maugh, Ford Motor Company. This letter, a copy of which is enclosed, discusses one example of a design which did not bear upon the seat frame.

Your third question asked whether the anchorage in a drawing which accompanied your letter complies with the location requirements in S4.3.1.1(a) of Standard No. 210. Section S4.3.1.1(a) states:

If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the anchorage shall extend forward from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.

As your letter correctly explains, prior to a recent amendment, this section in referring to "anchorage," referred to the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage." That amendment was a result of an amendment of the definition of "seat belt anchorage" to include hardware in the definition. Thus, the amendment was not intended to change the location of the "nearest contact point." In reviewing your drawing, the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." appears to be the belt for purposes of S4.3.1.1(a). While it is somewhat unclear in your drawing, it appears that the "nearest contact point" is either the part labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing" or the oval part around that part and adjacent to the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." In either case, the "line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point" would be within the permissible range of angles.

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: 10694

Mr. Randal K. Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking three questions regarding the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your first question concerns S4.3 of Standard No. 210 which states, "(a)nchorages for seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ... are exempt from the location requirements of this section." You asked whether a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position with an air bag is considered a seat belt assembly that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1. Assuming that the vehicle is certified to the requirements of Standard No. 208 using the air bag, the answer is yes.

Your second question asks what is meant by the phrases "belt bears upon the seat frame" and "does not bear upon the seat frame" in S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 of Standard No. 210. You stated that examples would be useful. NHTSA has previously said that the phrase "bears upon the seat frame" "refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat." If a more specific answer is needed in the context of a specific design, please send us information on the design in question.

Your third question asked whether the anchorage in a drawing which accompanied your letter complies with the location requirements in S4.3.1.1(a) of Standard No. 210. Section S4.3.1.1(a) states:

If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the anchorage shall extend forward from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.

As your letter correctly explains, prior to a recent amendment, this section in referring to "anchorage," referred to the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage." That amendment was a result of an amendment of the definition of "seat belt anchorage" to include hardware in the definition. Thus, the amendment was not intended to change the location of the "nearest contact point." In reviewing your drawing, the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." appears to be the belt for purposes of S4.3.1.1(a). While it is somewhat unclear in your drawing, it appears that the "nearest contact point" is either the part labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing" or the oval part around that part and adjacent to the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." In either case, the "line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point" would be within the permissible range of angles.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:210 d:4/3/95 August 25, 1981, letter to Mr. Roger E. Maugh, Ford Motor Company. This letter, a copy of which is enclosed, discusses one example of a design which did not bear upon the seat frame.

ID: nht81-3.41

DATE: 11/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation regarding Safety Standard No. 207 as it would apply to a new seat design your company is considering. This design includes additional seat track forward of the seat track positions that are included as normal riding positions. Since there are no locking positions on this additional seat track, the vehicle seat cannot comply with the loading requirements of Standard No. 207 when in this position. Those requirements must be satisfied in any position to which a seat can be adjusted. You ask whether the extended track would be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Standard No. 207 and for purposes of the adjustment requirements in testing under Safety Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question is yes unless some mechanism is included which will automatically return the seat to a locked position on the track when the seat back is in its upright position and no force is being applied. Most motor vehicle seats will travel some short distance forward of the forward-most adjustment locking position. However, they are designed to return to the nearest locked adjustment position when the adjusting force is removed from the seat, i.e., when the occupant releases the adjustment lever and stops pushing the seat forward. Many seat designs accomplish this result by spring-loading the seat. Therefore, the seat track portion labeled "A-B" in your diagram would not be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Safety Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 208 if the seat is designed to return automatically to position "B" and lock when the seat back is in its upright riding position.

None of the other alternative solutions you mentioned would be sufficient. All of the alternatives fail to prevent the seat with its seat back in the upright position from being adjusted to a position on the "A-B" portion of the track, all of which are unlocked positions. With one limited exception, none of the alternatives would aid the seat in meeting the forward and rearward loading requirements when the seat is adjusted somewhere on the "A-B" portion of the track. The exception concerns the alternative of strengthening the stopper at the "A" position. This alternative might enable the seat to meet the forward loading requirements of Standard No. 207, but only when the seat was adjusted to the "A" position on the "A-B" portion of the track. The seat would not be able to meet the aft loading requirements at the "A" position, however.

I would like to point out that the agency does not provide advance approval of any device or element of design in a motor vehicle. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act makes the vehicle manufacturer responsible for determining whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and for certifying that compliance. This letter only represents the agency's informal opinion based on its understanding of the information supplied in your letter.

Also, if you desire to have the information concerning this seat design treated as confidential business information by the agency, you will have to submit sufficient information to justify such treatment. I am enclosing proposed guidelines for seeking confidential treatment. If you do not choose to follow this procedure, we will have to place this interpretation in our public redbook file for the benefit of all interested persons.

ENC.

ID: 7021

Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander
Chief, Pupil Transportation
Maryland State Department of Education
Office of Administration and Finance
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point.

Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers."

I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point.

While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice 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:222 d:3/19/92

ID: nht92-8.23

DATE: March 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wm. Richard Alexander -- Chief, Pupil Transportation, Maryland State Department of Education, Office of Administration and Finance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Wm. Richard Alexander to Mary Versailles (OCC 7021)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point.

Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers."

I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point.

While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice 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: nht95-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Winston Sharples -- President, Cantab Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Sta ndard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a dete rmination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

ACTION: Issuance of Federal Register Notice Granting Cantab's Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standards Nos. 208 and 214 John Womack (K. WEINSTEIN) Acting Chief Counsel

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards

Attached for your signature is a Federal Register notice granting the petition by Cantab Motors for a temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, and the side impact protection requirements of Standard No. 214. The basis of the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to meet the standards.

Cantab imports shells of Morgan sports cars from England, and installs propane engines and drive trains in the US; for this reason, we consider Cantab rather than Morgan as the manufacturer. In the year preceding the filing of its exemption petition it produced only 9 such cars. It has cumulative net losses approaching $ 93,000 for the last three fiscal years. It has been working with Morgan to develop vehicles that will be equipped with airbags meeting Standard No. 208, and provide side impact prote ction meeting Standard No. 214.

Because the components that must be modified for conformance are under the control of Morgan rather than Cantab, the company is dependent upon Morgan's efforts. Cantab asked for only a 2-year exemption from Standard No. 208, indicating that it is optimi stic that its cars will conform in less than the 3 years it could have asked for. However, it appears to require the full 3 years for Standard No. 214.

Any threat to safety that would be presented by an exempted vehicle would be minimal because they are few in number, and are represented as conforming to earlier versions of the two standards.

No comments were received on the application.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Docket No. 95-53; Notice 2

Cantab Motors, Ltd.

Grant of Application for Temporary Exemption From

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 208 and 214

Cantab Motors, Ltd., of Round Hill, Va., applied for a temporary exemption of two years from paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, and for three years from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No . 214 Side Impact Protection. The basis of the application was that compliance will cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application was published on July 14, 1995, and an opportunity afforded for comment (60 FR 36328).

The make and type of passenger car for which exemption was requested is the Morgan open car or convertible. Morgan Motor Company ("Morgan"), the British manufacturer of the Morgan, has not offered its vehicle for sale in the United States since the e arly days of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the nine years it has been in business, the applicant has bought 35 incomplete Morgan cars from the British manufacturer, and imported them as motor vehicle equipment, completing manufacture by the addition of engine and fuel system components. They differ from their British counterparts, not only in equipment items and modifications necessary for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but also in their fuel system compon ents and engines, which are propane fueled. As the party completing manufacture of the vehicle, Cantab certifies its conformance to all applicable Federal safety and bumper standards. The vehicle completed by Cantab in the U.S. is deemed sufficiently di fferent from the one produced in Britain that NHTSA considers Cantab the manufacturer, not a converter, even though the brand names are the same.

Morgan itself produced 478 cars in 1994, while in the year preceding the filing of its petition in June 1995, the applicant produced 9 cars for sale in the United States. Since the granting of its original exemption in 1990, Cantab has invested $ 38, 244 in research and development related to compliance with Federal safety and emissions standards. The applicant has experienced a net loss in each of its last three fiscal (calendar) years, with a cumulative net loss for this period of $ 92,594.

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 208

Cantab received NHTSA Exemption No. 90-3 from S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.2.2 of Standard No. 208, which expired May 1, 1993 (55 FR 21141). When this exemption was granted in 1990, the applicant had concluded that the most feasible way for it to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 was by means of an automatically deploying belt. In the period following the granting of the exemption, Morgan and the applicant created a mock-up of the Morgan passenger compartment with seat belt h ardware and motor drive assemblies. In time, it was determined that the belt track was likely to deform, making it inoperable. The program was abandoned, and Morgan and Cantab embarked upon research leading to a dual airbag system.

According to the applicant, Morgan tried without success to obtain a suitable airbag system from Mazda, Jaguar, Rolls-Royce and Lotus. As a result, Morgan is now developing its own system for its cars, and "[as] many as twelve different sensors, of b oth the impact and deceleration (sic) type, have been tested and the system currently utilizes a steering wheel from a Jaguar and the Land Rover Discovery steering column." Redesign of the passenger compartment is underway, involving knee bolstering, a s upplementary seat belt system, antisubmarining devices, and the seats themselves. Morgan informed the applicant on May 2, 1995, that it had thus far completed 10 tests on the mechanical components involved "and are now carrying out a detailed assessment of air bag operating systems and columns before we will be in a position to undertake the full set of appropriate tests to approve the installation in our vehicles."

Application for Exemption from Standard No. 214

Concurrently, Morgan and the applicant have been working towards meeting the dynamic test and performance requirements for side impact protection, for which Standard No. 214 has established a phase-in schedule. Although Morgan fits its car with a dua l roll bar system specified by Cantab, and Cantab installs door bars and strengthens the door latch receptacle and striker plate, the system does not yet conform to the new requirements of Standard No. 214, and the applicant has asked for an exemption of three years. It does, however, meet the previous side door strength requirements of the standard. Were the phase-in requirement of S8 applied to it, calculated on the basis of its limited production, only very few cars would be required to meet the st andard.

Safety and Public Interest Arguments

Because of the small number of vehicles that the applicant produces and its belief that they are used for pleasure rather than daily for business commuting or on long trips, and because of the three-point restraints and side impact protection currentl y offered, the applicant argued that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with safety. It brought to the agency's attention two recent oblique front impact accidents at estimated speeds of 30 mph and 65 mph respectively in which t he restrained occupants "emerged unscathed."

Further, the availability "of this unique vehicle . . . will help maintain the existing diversity of motor vehicles available to the U.S. consumer." Finally, "the distribution of [this] propane-fueled vehicle has contributed to the national interest b y promoting the development of motor systems by using alternate fuels."

No comments were received on the application.

In adding only engine and fuel system components to incomplete vehicles, the applicant is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles in the conventional sense. It does not produce the front end structural components, instrument panel, or steering wheel, ar eas of the motor vehicle whose design is critical for compliance with the airbag requirements of Standard No. 208. These are manufactured by Morgan, and the applicant is necessarily dependent upon Morgan to devise designs that will enable conformance wi th Standard No. 208. The applicant has been monitoring Morgan's progress, and that company is engaging in testing and design activities necessary for eventual conformance. The fact that the applicant is requesting only a two-year exemption, rather than three, indicates its belief that complying operator and passenger airbags will at last be fitted to its cars by the end of this period.

Similarly, the applicant is dependent upon the structural design of its vehicle for compliance with Standard No. 214. As with Standard No. 208, Morgan and the applicant are working towards conformance, though apparently it will not be achieved within two years. In both instances, however, the applicant is conscious of the need to conform and has been taking steps to accomplish it. Although the company's total expenditure of $ 38,244 in the last five years to meet emission and safety requirements is low, the small number of cars produced for sale in the United States in the last year, nine, would not make available substantial funds to the company, and its cumulative net losses of $ 92,594 indicate an operation whose financial existence is precario us.

Applicant's cars are equipped with manual three-point restraint systems and comply with previous side impact intrusion requirements. Because applicant produces only one line of vehicles, it cannot take advantage of the phase-in requirement. Given th e existing level of safety of the vehicles and the comparatively small exposure of the small number of them that would be produced under an exemption, there would appear to be an insignificant risk to traffic safety by providing an exemption. The public interest is served by maintaining the existence of small businesses and by creating awareness of alternative power sources.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby found that to require immediate compliance with Standards Nos. 208 and 214 would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has in good faith attempted to meet the standards, and that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

Accordingly, the applicant is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 95-2, from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring September 1, 1997, and from 49 CFR 571.214 Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 214 Side Impact Protection, expiring September 1, 1998.

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on SEP 7 1995

Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator

BILLING CODE: 4910-59-P

ID: aiam1129

Dear Senator Magnuson: You wrote shortly after Mr. Toms' briefing on passive restrain technology to request my views on the implementation of Standard 208. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken a number of steps to lay the groundwork for sound decisions on this subject. I want to outline those steps for you and describe our policy regarding interim restraint systems.; As a result of the decision in *Chrysler* v. *Department o Transportation*, the principal focus of NHTSA has been on the test dummy used in Standard 208. Work has now progressed to the point of proposing a new test dummy specification, on which NHTSA is requesting comments. The court in *Chrysler* instructed NHTSA to delay the effective date for the implementation of passive restraints until a reasonable time after test dummy specifications are issued. Thus, NHTSA is obliged to consider the comments it receives on the dummy in forming its judgment as to when passive restraints should be required.; In order to enable a large scale passive restraint evaluation to b conducted, the agency has proposed to adopt the new dummy proposal as part of the optional passive restraint systems allowed after August 1973. This step will allow a manufacturer such as General Motors, which has plans for building up to 100,000 air bag equipped cars in model year 1974, to proceed with its plans.; During the period in which active and passive restraint options ar available to manufacturers, NHTSA will continue its efforts to increase seat belt usage. Standard 208 now requires seat belt interlock systems as the alternative to passive systems. In a decision announced on April 20, the agency rejected petitions from several manufacturers to delete the interlock system and reaffirmed its position that the interlock is an appropriate means of increasing belt usage.; The Department is making every effort to increase seat belt use, bot through the encouragement of mandatory usage laws and through the provision of devices such as the interlock. We expect that such measures will contribute to a reduction in the rate of death and injury on our highways.; Sincerely, Claude S. Brinegar

ID: nht80-2.33

DATE: 05/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartmen, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 7 1980

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartmen, Braun & Halper Attorneys at Law 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1015 Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, asking several questions about Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc.

I would first like to correct an apparent misunderstanding you have about remarks made by Mr. Hitchcock in a meeting with you and Mr. Richard Hyde of Strolee. Mr. Hitchcock's remarks were to the effect that the agency encouraged beneficial innovations in child restraints and would be receptive to amending the standard to remove any restrictions to beneficial innovations. Any amendments to the standard would be made in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The agency does not engage in "ad hoc" rulemaking procedures.

The following are the responses to the fourteen questions you asked.

1. You asked how the minimum surface area requirements set in section 5.2.2 for the sides and back of child restraints are to be measured. You were specifically concerned about measuring "curved surfaces, without some guidelines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained." The area's measurements can be determined by positioning the appropriate test dummy in the restraint. The area within the dummy's outline projected directly rearward and the areas within the dummy's torso outline projected directly sideward must comply with the minimum surface area for the back and sides of the restraint.

2. You are correct that section S5.2.2.1(c) only requires a minimum radius of curvature and does not establish a minimum surface area for fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child. The agency encourages manufacturers to utilize designs with large surface areas at least equivalent to the shield designs incorporated in some current restraints.

3. You asked whether shoulder belt grommets are prohibited by section 5.2.3.2. In response to Strolee's petition for rulemaking on section 5.2.3.2, the agency has amended the section to permit the use of grommets that comply with the protrusion limitation requirements of section 5.2.4.

4. You raised a question about whether section 5.4.3.3 requires the use of a five-point belt system. The agency's intent was to allow the use of hybrid systems, which for example, might use upper torso restraints, a crotch strap and a shield instead of a lap belt. Thus, the agency provided in section 5.4.3.3(c) that a crotch strap must connect to the "lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso." The agency established the minimum radius of curvature requirements of section 5.2.2.1(c) to ensure that any surface used in place of a lap or other belt would not concentrate forces on a limited area of the child's body. The recent notice on the standard, appearing in the Federal Register of May 1, 1980, amends the standard to clarify section 5.4.3.3.

5. You objected to the buckle force requirements set in section 5.4.3.5 as being too high. The goal of that section is to prevent young children from opening the buckles while ensuring that adults can do so. As explained in the December 1979 final rule, section 5.4.3.4 is based on research done by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Institute. The research showed that young children could not open a buckle requiring a release force of 12 or more pounds, but could open buckles requiring a lower release force. That same research found that buckles requiring a release force greater than 20 pounds would be difficult for adult women to open. The agency is not aware of any research contradicting the Swedish study and no commenter to the docket submitted any data showing that the Swedish study is inaccurate.

6. You asked for an interpretation of the words "integral" and "position" as those words are used in section 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

The word "position" was also used in its common dictionary sense to mean put in place or arrange. Thus during the test, each movable surface will be put into place in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. The positioning requirements only apply to the arrangement of the movable surface and does not permit the attachment of any belts that are not an integral part of the movable surface.

7. You stated section 6.1.2.4 is inconsistent with S6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 because 6.1.2.4 supposedly allows attachment of the restraint system's belts, while sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 do not allow belts to be attached that are not an integral part of a fixed or movable surface.

Your interpretation is not correct. Section 6.1.2.4 sets specifications for tightening the restraint system's belts, prior to the sled test. However, both sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 provide that the belt adjustment requirements of section 6.1.2.4 are not to apply to belts that are not an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.

8. You asked how the agency defined "target point" as that term is used in section 5.1.3.2. Section 5.1.3.2 requires that "no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head" shall pass through two specified planes during the sled test. The agency used the term "target point" to refer to the center of the target on the side of the test dummy's head. The location of the target is specified in the engineering drawing incorporated in Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, Subpart C.

9. You asked whether the standard establishes strength specifications for belts. Section 5.4 establishes performance requirements that the belt systems used in child restraint systems must meet. The section does not establish specific breaking strengths for the belts, other than the requirement in section 5.4.1(a) that after being subjected to "the abrasion requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, the belts must have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraided webbing...." Of course, belts which are to be attached during testing must not break during the test if the effect of the breakage is to cause a violation of section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.

10. You expressed concern about "the difficulty in running quality control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) only authorizes the agency to issue requirements that are as performance oriented as possible. The Act places responsibility on a manufacturer to devise its own specifications which will ensure that its product performs as required.

11. You asked our opinion whether the Waterbury buckle complies with standard No. 213. The agency does not issue opinions as to whether a particular design does or does not comply with the requirements of a standard. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers must certify that they comply with all applicable federal standards. 12. We have answered your questions concerning the use of soft foam armrests or trays in our earlier letter of April 17, 1980.

13. You asked whether "a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some other portion of the car seat must comply with the tension (sic) requirements of section 5.4.3.5. That section provides that "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall" meet specified buckle release requirements. Since a crotch strap is used in a child restraint system to restrain the child, a buckle used with the crotch strap must comply with the requirements of section 5.4.3.5.

14. You raised a question about the safety of buckles that "do not snap or latch, but rather require the turn of a knob to seal them together." Your concern in that the knob may not be fully turned and thus the buckle may not be fully latched. Any buckle, regardless of its specific design must comply with the release requirements of section 5.4.3.5. In the preamble to the December 1979 final rule, the agency encouraged manufacturers to use push button buckles, similar to those used in automobile belts, so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies. Use of push button buckles would also solve the potential problems of incomplete latching that may be associated with knob-type buckles.

If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Department of Transportation 100 7th Street, S. W., Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc.

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This letter will serve to confirm some of the items that were discussed between Mr. Hyde and me, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee"), and Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Radovitch, Dr. Burgett and you in our meeting of last week.

The following summation is presented to you in numerical order, but the relative importance of the item is not to be inferred from its location on the list.

Throughout the meeting we expressed our concern with the vagueness of certain areas of the standard. In addition, we expressed our concern regarding the manner in which this standard will be administered. This concern was further reinforced by our discussion during the first hour with Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that he would be receptive to any new ideas, and that if the Department felt the idea had merit the standard could be amended or interpreted to reflect these developments. Such an approach, we submit, is contrary to law and places the companies in the industry at a severe competitive disadvantage with each other. While Strolee is earnestly in favor of all developments that will truly enhance child safety, it feels that any developments must be adequately tested, to insure their safety, and must conform to Standard No. 213. If the standard is to be changed, then adequate notice should be given to all manufacturers, adequate time to comment should be given, and the standards duly adopted and published in the Federal Register citing realistic compliance time for the benefit of all manufacturers in the industry. To have "ad hoc" approval would, we feel, be both contrary to law and unfair to the manufacturers who have attempted in good faith to comply with the wording of the standard.

We expressed a concern to you regarding, for example, Section 5.4.3.3, which clearly states that if the child restraint system has belts, it shall have the three types of belts, to wit: shoulder belts, a lap belt and a crotch strap, the latter only if the seating system is recommended for children over twenty pounds. We objected to the Department giving its approval to a car seat having less than this number of belts since the standard expressly requires this. Our reasoning related to the fact that a manufacturer, be it Strolee or some other manufacturer, who relied upon the clear and specific requirements of this section of the standard in designing its car seat could be faced with a situation where a competitive car seat does not contain the required number of belts and was designed in a different manner. The company attempting to comply with the standard could, thus, be discriminated against in favor of another manufacturer who did not comply with this section of the standard. The obvious unfairness of this result, not to mention the questionable legality of such a procedure with amorphous standards, is not subject to dispute. This matter is considered from a different standpoint in the discussion that follows.

One final introductory point, both Mr. Hyde and I expressed our concern with the enforcement date of the new standard. In the realistic world of business, seats must be designed and tested, molds made and tooling prepared for production and then the seats must be retested. Our best estimate is that will take at least six months for the mold alone. Mr. Hyde has presented a letter to you setting forth a realistic time frame. We would earnestly request that the standards not become effective until March 1, 1981. In this regard, if the Department is going to allow amendments to the standard, or interpretations to the standard, to remove some of the ambiguities, we would request that a similar time consideration should be given after the interpretation or the amendment. For example, if Strolee has designed a car seat based upon three types of straps clearly mandated by Section 5.4.3.3 and the Departmental interpretation amends or interprets its standards to say that only two types of straps are required, then in the interest of fairness, we feel sufficient time should be given to allow us to retool, retest and take whatever steps are necessary to bring our seat into conformity with the amended standard. If such is not allowed, as I pointed out to you my client will be at a severe disadvantage or, in the alternative some other manufacturer will be at a severe disadvantage concerning their car seat vis-a-vis the Strolee seat.

In regard to the specific problems that we see with the regulations, while I am aware that the regulations have become final and the time for comment has expired, the following reflects some of the matters that we discussed and some of our concerns:

1) Section 5.2.2. This section fails to indicate how the dimensions of 85 square inches, 24 square inches and 48 square inches are to be measured. When dealing with curved surfaces, without some guide lines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained. It was suggested that, as to the back areas, you were talking about the area directly behind the dummy.

2) Section 5.2.2.1(c). This section requires a radius of curvature of not less than three inches. We inquired as to a minimum area. Although it is certainly not Strolee's intent, or any other manufacturer of which we are aware, it is conceivable that a one-half inch metal bar with a radius of curvature of not less than three inches would pass this standard. Mr. Hitchcock stated that generally a one and one-half inch width, similar to the belt width requirements, would be acceptable, but such does not appear from the regulations.

3) Section 5.2.3.2. It was pointed out to you that this section would preclude the use of a shoulder harness which is inserted through the back of the shell, since the areas where the shoulder strap is inserted would not contain the required material. The Strolee system used grommets. You indicated to us that the grommets will be acceptable provided they comply with the protrusion limitation of Section 5.2.4.

4) Section 5.4.3.3. You indicated to us that there was no reason that a manufacturer cannot use the nonbelt substitute for the required three belt system. You indicated that you would interpret it with a ruling. In this connection, I have already expressed our objection to this type of procedure wherein a ruling would be squarely contrary to the express language of the standard.

5) Section 5.4.35. We raised some objection to the twelve pound--twenty pound standard. Mr. Hyde pointed out the experience that Strolee has had when the tension to release the belt is too tight (Strolee's buckle release force is in the eight pound range). Mr. Radovitch indicated that these standards were adopted from a Swedish study without tests being made by your department. Mr. Hyde pointed out that if the tension is too great, the mother will not use the belt buckle system, and this would not be in the best interest of the child. Strolee's experience has been some complaints by women to an eight pound buckle being difficult to use. If the twelve to twenty pound standard is mandatory, there would be substantial difficulty in removing a child from the car seat under emergency circumstances. We question if there has been any investigation as to the validity of the Swedish study.

6) Sections 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). The question of what is meant by the use of the words "integral part of the system". After substantial discussion, we were advised that the Department considered it as an integral part if it could not be removed without the use of tools. That is, if the belts could be removed by hand, they would not be considered an integral part of the fixed or moveable surface.

We also asked what was meant by the word "position" wherein the standard mandates that you position each moveable surface in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. Does this mean that belts can be attached? I feel this was not clarified or resolved.

7) Section 6.1.2.4. It was pointed out to you an inconsistency of this section with Sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 3.2. Section 6.1.2.4 providing that if the child seat is provided with shoulder and pelvic belts they shall be adjusted accordingly, yet Tests Configuration II precludes the use of such belts.

8) Section 5.1.3.2. We asked for a definition of the words "target point" and you indicated that this was the center point of the target area, not a target area of a fixed diameter.

9) Section 5.4. We asked for confirmation as to strength specification on the belts and hardware. You indicated that there were no specifications, just performance requirements and a minimum width of not less than one and one-half inches on the belts. This included any positioning belt.

10) Section 6.2. We pointed out to you the difficulty in running quality control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards. It was impractical, Mr. Hyde stated, to run sled tests on each group of buckles received and while another test might be devised, the realiability of such other test could not be totally insured.

11) We asked your opinion as to whether the Waterbury buckle complies with your requirements. We did not resolve this.

12) We asked your opinion concerning a soft foam arm rest or tray in front of the car seat, something that would contribute play value but obviously having no safety function. We would appreciate your studied opinion on this. Strolee feels such an arm rest is most important to keep the child happy in the car seat.

13) In regard to the crotch strap, we requested an interpretation as to whether a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some other portion of the car seat must comply with the tension requirements of Section 5.4.3.5. We expressed our concern that a child might be able to reach the crotch strap and undo it if the tension requirements were not met.

14) In regard to the buckle system, we expressed our concern as to buckles that did not snap or latch, but rather required the turn of a knob to seal them together. What happens if the knob was not fully turned, i.e., if a bolt restraint was turned half way so that the buckle was not fully latched. You indicated to us that you had not considered that problem.

In addition to the foregoing specifics, we expressed our general concern with this standard and the difficulty of complying with it. We pointed out to you that Strolee is and always has been a conscientious manufacturer of quality products with safety first in mind and has a record for producing a reliable seat without safety complaints. For over twenty-five years, Strolee has studied the buying habits of parents, and more importantly, safety for infants. Thus, their strong belief that this new standard will reduce car seat usage and, most regretably, actually reduces the protection of the infant.

While I did not discuss it with you, I think you should bear in mind that any client, the largest manufacturer of juvenile car seats, has never been sued or had a claim made for even one child that was ever injured in any automobile accident. To the contrary, its files are replete with letters from parents praising Strolee for saving their child from serious injury or worse, in accidents of unbelievable force. In this day and age where individuals are all too willing to file claims and to sue for accidents, the record of Strolee in producing a safety device for children, I believe, is unparalleled. It is this record which makes the new standards so punitive to my client and to parents and their infants. The cost, both in dollars and cents, and in executive time, to change a product where no need has been shown to exist is particularly onerous. Indeed, when one reflects that the added costs necessitated by the changes will result in a higher cost to the consumer, and a subsequent diminution in demand, the new standard seems incongruous.

In conclusion, we request that all ambiguities, to the extent they can be ascertained at the present time, be resolved, that the effective date of the regulations be postponed to March 1, 1981, and if amendments are made to the standard, that the effective date be delayed a proportionately greater length of time. We also request that any amendments be made subject to comment and review by appropriately qualified individuals in the private sector and we request that no competitive advantage be granted to anyone in the industry by virtue of any interpretation of existing standard without due process of law.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc