ID: aiam0846

Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in further reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, concernin the seat belt retractor test procedures of section S5.2(k) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; In our initial reply of August 21, we stated that the belt was to b retracted completely during the cycling, even though some vehicle installations might prevent complete retraction. After further examining the consequences of this position, we have concluded that it is in error.; The intent of the cycling sequence is to reflect the normal use of th belt over time. If the belt is designed to be installed in a vehicle in such a manner that during normal cycling a part of the webbing cannot be wound onto the retractor, a compliance test should employ the same restrictions of movement. We therefore conclude that you are correct in considering a belt to be fully retracted for purposes of Standard No. 209 when it is retracted as fully as the geometry of its installation permits.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht91-6.31

DATE: October 21, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Kenney -- Sporting Tailors Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron (Std. 302); Also attached to copy of 49 CFR 571.302, pages 517-519, Flammability of interior materials; Also attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Frank Kenney to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 6356)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302, copy enclosed) to your product, a roll bar top or "Bikini Top" for use on vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. You explained that the material would consist of three layers: a vinyl top layer, a flame retardant middle layer, and a brushed nylon tricot black backing as the lower layer. In addition, a binding fabric strip would be sewn around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and a finished appearance. You also explained that you may supply a tote bag in which the bikini top could be stored. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles.

If your bikini top is added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must comply with Standard No. 302. That standard applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new motor vehicles. Your bikini top would be considered a convertible top. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with your convertible top would need to ensure that the vehicles, including your top, conform to Standard No. 302.

Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, i.e., accessories or additions to motor vehicles sold to owners of used vehicles. Nevertheless, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect the use of a product such as yours sold in the

aftermarket. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer adds a convertible top which enables a vehicle to continue to meet Standard No. 302 and the other safety standards.

The prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your bikini top, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety features of his or her vehicle.

You should be aware that, as the manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that, whether or not Standard No. 302 applies to your convertible top, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

I will now address you specific questions about Standard No. 302, on the assumption that the standard applies to your product. After explaining your belief that the main part of the material complies with Standard No. 302, you asked whether the binding fabric strip sewn all around the edges of the roll would also have to be made flame retardant. As explained below, the binding fabric strip would have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Under sections S4.1 and S4.2, any portion of a convertible top which is within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space must meet the standard's flammability requirements. It is our opinion that the binding fabric strip sewn around the edges of your convertible top would be part of the convertible top and thus subject to this provision. I note that it is the agency's longstanding interpretation that a component "incorporated into" a component that is listed in section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 is subject to the standard. A June 29, 1990 interpretation to Mr. Ed McCarron (copy enclosed) explains this policy in the context of a mattress. In particular, that interpretation addressed whether a fabric "corner reinforcement" that is stitched on the outside of the mattress cover was subject to Standard No. 302. In answering in the affirmative, the interpretation explained that the corner reinforcement is incorporated into the mattress cover through the stitching process. By analogy, your "stitched binding strip" would be incorporated into your convertible top and thus subject to Standard No. 302.

The interpretation letter to Mr. McCarron further explained the testing procedures related to composite materials. Any components that do not

adhere to other materials at every point of contact would be tested separately under S4.2.1. Any components that adhere to other material at every point of contact would be tested as a composite with the other material.

The sample enclosed with your letter indicates that the binding fabric strip does not adhere to the main part of the bikini top at every point of contact. Instead, the binding strip is folded over the edge of the main part of the bikini top and held in place by single stitching. Therefore, it would be tested separately from the main part of the bikini top.

You also asked whether a tote bag used to store the roll bar top would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. The answer to that question is no. The list of components subject to Standard No. 302 set forth in S4.1 does not include a tote bag or similar item.

Finally, you stated that you understand that you must conform to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and asked whether there would be anything else that would apply to your product. No NHTSA requirements other than those discussed above would apply to your product.

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

Enclosure

Letter dated 6-29-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ed McCarron of Western Star Trucks Inc. (Text omitted)

Enclosure

Copy of 49 CFR 571.302: Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (Text omitted)

ID: aiam1228

Dear Mr. Robb: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning th conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209.; The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements than you describe, we have serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements.; The second feature you describe is a strap through the harness assembl that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h).; The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floo attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labeled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph.; The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up an down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4968

"Dear Mr. Kubehl: This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992 concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows. In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: 'The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds'. My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds. Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would not be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) and to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a lap belt for pelvic restraint,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied. If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic portion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied. Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied. The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop. 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 ";

ID: aiam3643

Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter of April 20, 1983, asking severa questions concerning the requirements for armrests in Safety Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. That standard requires, as one optional means of compliance (S3.5.1(c)), that each armrest have at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, when measured vertically in side elevation. You ask whether this 2-inch measurement may be made from the outermost points of the base of the armrest as it fits against the door inner trim, or whether the measurement must be made from the inboard portion of the armrest that would actually contact a vehicle occupant. You also ask if the standard permits an armrest surface that would contact an occupant to be tilted at a 15 degree angle from the vertical, and whether it permits that surface to have 'low moles' or 'shallow bezels' (i.e., minor protrusions or indentations).; With reference to the drawing included in your letter, Standard No. 20 would require the specified 2-inch measurement to be taken at the 'H1' parameters, rather than the 'HO'. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the armrest illustrated in your drawing, regardless of its vertical length.; Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not preclude 'moles' or 'bezels' in th armrest, since there are no limitations on radius of curvature. A 'mole' which projected only moderately into the vehicle interior would be included in the calculation to determine compliance with the requirement for 2 inches of covered surface. If a mole projected so far into the vehicle interior that it would prevent pelvic contact with the rest of the armrest, however, only the mole would be included in the calculation.; By the same token, while a 'bezel' is not precluded, it is not include in the calculation if it is so deep that it cannot be contacted.; Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not specify any particular angle at which a armrest must be set with relation to the door inner trim. Therefore, it is permissible for the inboard surface of the armrest illustrated in your drawing to make an angle of 15 degrees from the vertical.; Finally, I would point out that paragraph S3.5.1(c) is one of thre optional means of compliance for manufacturers who install armrests. A manufacturer may also satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is not necessary to provide 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2982

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your November 29, 1978, letter asking severa questions about test procedures conducted in accordance with Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Your questions concern the impact and contact area test requirements of the standard.; First, you suggest that the head and knee impact tests should b conducted with only one impact allowed per seat back. The standard states in S5.3.1: 'A surface area that has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S5.3.' You apparently interpret 'surface area' to mean an entire seat back.; The purpose of the above-cited sentence in S5.3.1 is to assur manufacturers that the agency will not hit the test seat in the identical spot twice during compliance testing. However, it is permissible for several tests to be run on a seat as long as the test device does not impact the same specific area previously contacted by the device in an earlier test. This test method is appropriate because it approximates accident conditions. A seat is likely to be impacted more than once in an accident when the seat immediately behind it is occupied by three passengers. Accordingly, the agency will continue to run multiple tests on a seat back but will never impact the same 'surface area' more than once.; In your second question, you suggest that a test sequence i appropriate for contact area testing. The agency disagrees. The agency agrees that the head form and knee form impact tests are different tests for the reasons outlined in your letter. However, nothing in those reasons compels the agency to conclude that a test sequence would be appropriate for contact area testing. In an accident, the impact of children on a seat back may or may not be sequential in nature. Therefore, the existing test method, which permits the agency to sequence tests in any manner, closely reflects actual accident experiences. Accordingly, the agency will not adopt a specific sequence in its test procedures.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 08-000497--16 Jan 09--rewrite

ID: aiam2592

Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your April 28, 1977, letter in which you ask severa questions concerning Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and the definition of school bus.; You first ask whether the seat spacing requirements found in S5.2.1 o the standard are applicable to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. Buses in this weight classification do not have to comply with the mandatory seat spacing requirements. Since these buses are equipped with seat belts, the mandatory seat spacing is not necessary to provide adequate occupant crash protection.; Your second question concerns those areas required to meet the hea protection zone requirements. You ask whether the window frame, window supporting structure, and window glass are included within the head protection zone requirements. The NHTSA issued an amendment of the standard (Notice 6, 41 FR 28506) in an attempt to clarify those portions of the bus subject to the head protection zone requirements. In this notice (copy enclosed), we stated that the sidewall, window and door structures were never intended to be included within the zone and are not subject to the requirements for head protection. However, the roof structure, if it falls within the zone, is subject to the requirements. If you need further information to determine the portions of your bus that would be included within the head protection zone requirements, I suggest that you send the agency sketches of your bus interior depicting those areas of concern.; Concerning seat orientation, you question whether the requirement fo forward facing seats found in S5.1 of the standard applies to buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of the standard lists the paragraphs of the standard applicable to buses in the above-mentioned weight classification. S5(b) does not refer to S5.1 which contains the requirement for forward facing seats. This omission was an oversight that occurred during the drafting of the regulation. The agency intended that seats in all school buses be forward facing, unless designed for handicapped or convalescent passengers as permitted in Notice 6. This intent is obvious since, as you note, we require these seats to comply with forward and rearward performance requirements. The NHTSA will soon issue an amendment of the standard to correct this omission.; Your final question concerns the definition of school bus whic excludes common carriers in urban transportation. Your interpretation of this exclusion is correct. These buses are permitted to transport children to and from school but need not comply with the school bus construction standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2593

Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your April 28, 1977, letter in which you ask severa questions concerning Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, and the definition of school bus.; You first ask whether the seat spacing requirements found in S5.2.1 o the standard are applicable to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) equal to or less than 10,000 pounds. Buses in this weight classification do not have to comply with the mandatory seat spacing requirements. Since these buses are equipped with seat belts, the mandatory seat spacing is not necessary to provide adequate occupant crash protection.; Your second question concerns those areas required to meet the hea protection zone requirements. You ask whether the window frame, window supporting structure, and window glass are included within the head protection zone requirements.; The NHTSA issued an amendment of the standard (Notice 6, 41 FR 28506 in an attempt to clarify those portions of the bus subject to the head protection zone requirements. In this notice (copy enclosed), we stated that the sidewall, window and door structures were never intended to be included within the zone and are not subject to the requirements for head protection. However, the roof structure, if it falls within the zone, is subject to the requirements. If you need further information to determine the portions of your bus that would be included within the head protection zone requirements, I suggest that you send the agency sketches of your bus interior depicting those areas of concern.; Concerning seat orientation, you question whether the requirements fo forward facing seats found in S5.1 of the standard applies to buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of the standard lists the paragraphs of the standard applicable to buses in the above-mentioned weight classification. S5(b) does not refer to S5.1 which contains the requirement for forward facing seats. This omission was an oversight that occurred during the drafting of the regulation. The agency intended that seats in all school buses be forward facing, unless designed for handicapped or convalescent passengers as permitted in Notice 6. This intent is obvious since, as you note, we require these seats to comply with forward and rearward performance requirements. The NHTSA will soon issue an amendment of the standard to correct this omission.; Your final question concerns the definition of school bus whic excludes common carriers in urban transportation. Your interpretation of this exclusion is correct. These buses are permitted to transport children to and from school but need not comply with the school bus construction standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5102

"Dear Mr. McAusland: This responds to your letter asking whether you design of an infant seat would comply with S5.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state that your infant seat would have a frame made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet, and that all the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 inch. As discussed below, the design would not comply if the edges of the seat frame are contactable by the infant dummy's head or torso during the standard's dynamic test. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.4, 'Protrusion limitation,' of Standard No. 213 states: Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 the head impact protection requirements for infant seats , shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.) The term 'contactable surface' is defined in S4 of the standard as 'any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1.' Under S5.2.4, any edges of a rigid structural component within or underlying a surface that can be contacted by the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy during Standard No. 213's dynamic test must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch. Since the frame edges of your infant seat have a radius of only 1/8 inch, the seat would not comply with S5.2.4 if the surfaces overlying those edges can be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test. You ask whether, since side loading is not specified in Standard No. 213, can you conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame, i.e., that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test. We assume that you believe the infant's head and torso are unlikely to contact the frame's edges in the 213 dynamic test since, due to the forward motion of the test, the dummy's components are likely to move forward and rearward, rather than laterally. I note that, for purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would determine whether the surfaces are contactable surfaces for the purposes of S5.2.4 by observing a dynamic test, conducted according to the procedures in Standard No. 213. With respect to the issue of what information or analysis would be sufficient, for purposes of certification, for you to conclude that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test, manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. However, this does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. You should be aware, however, that the direction of dummy movement during the Standard No. 213 dynamic test depends on many variables other than the direction of the test, such as the performance of the restraint's belt system. For example, in the event a child seat's upper torso restraint slipped off the dummy's shoulder in the dynamic test, the dummy could move laterally and strike the sides of the restraint system. You should consider all of the variables that could affect the dummy's performance when determining whether frame contact can occur. I also note that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Infant restraints are involved in real-world crashes other than the frontal impacts simulated in Standard No. 213. If data indicated that a child seat exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as sharp edges resulting in injuries in a side crash, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall. Enclosed is an information sheet which provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";