ID: 1983-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Andial

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 13 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Arnold H. Wagner Andial 3207 S. Shannon Street Santa Ana, California 92704

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your February 2, 1983, letter asking whether a child seat that you plan to produce must comply with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. From the description of your child seat, it appears that the answer is yes.

Standard No. 213 states in section 4 that a child restraint system is any device used to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds. It is not necessary that a seat be equipped with its own restraint devices to fall within the ambit of the standard. If a device is designed to seat or position a child within the designated weight range, that device must comply with the requirements.

The instructions that accompanied your letter showed how the seat should be installed for children from three to six years of age and subsequently for children in the age range of six to ten. Certainly children in the three to six age bracket would fall within the weight range (50 pounds or less) designated in the standard. Since this is the case, it appears that your child seat is designed to seat or position children of the size specified in the standard and would therefore be required to comply with the requirements of the standard.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel February 2, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Council US Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Approval of child restraint, by means of 3 point type belt system

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Enclosed please find copies of a letter from Arvin/Calspan to us, and a copy of the installation instructions of said restraint.

We understand that the application of FMVSS No. 213 restraint designs does not cover our particular system, and a formal decision is needed in order to get it safety approved.

We would like to ask you to consider our request at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely

Arnold H. Wagner Sec/Tres.

AHW/mgm

January 24, 1983

Mr. Arnold Wagner Andial 3207 S. Shannon Street Santa Ana, CA 92704

Dear Mr. Wagner:

We received your child restraint last week and have examined the restraint and the installation instructions. The design of this restraint (i.e., use of a three-point belt system) is not addressed in the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213).

We have been informed by the Department of Transportation that a formal decision is required with regard to the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to restraint designs which are not specifically addressed in this safety standard. A request for a formal decision should be sent to:

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Council U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

I would suggest that you include a copy of your installation instructions.

A brochure of Calspan's child restraint testing capabilities is included with this letter. Our recommendation for a sled test program follows:

Sled Test #1 - Two restraints placed side-by-side on the sled (see Photograph #2 in brochure). One restraint will be occupied by a 3- year-old size dummy (15 kg) with the restraint installed as suggested for 9-18 kg children and the other restraint occupied by a 6-year-old size dummy (22 kg) with the restraint installed as suggested for 15-25 kg children. This test would be performed at 30 mph as required in FMVSS 213 Configuration 1.

Sled Test #2 - One restraint occupied by a 3-year-old size dummy with the restraint attached to the seat by means of a lap belt only, tested at 20 mph. This should satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, Configuration II.

Although FMVSS No. 215 only requires testing with the three-year-old size dummy, we have included a test with the larger six-year-old size dummy since your restraint is designed for use by larger children.

Calspan charges one thousand dollars ($1,000) U. S. funds for each sled test, regardless of the number of dummies used. This price includes high-speed movie films, electronic data, and photographs for each test and analysis and reporting of all relevant data.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. We would like to perform these sled tests in February if this is convenient for you.

Sincerely yours,

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/Physical Sciences

kd

Enc.

ID: 1984-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 3, 1984

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Schnader; Harrison; Segal & Lewis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an emergency locking retractor designed by one of your clients. The following discussion addresses the application of those standards to the retractor.

You explained that the purpose of the new emergency locking retractor (ELR) is to facilitate the securing of a child restraint in a vehicle. The ELR would only be installed in forward-facing passenger seating positions. The new ELR is designed so if the belt is pulled all the way out of the retractor, the ELR will convert into an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor will revert automatically to the ELR mode.

You further explained that the continuous loop lap and upper torso belt used with this retractor is 380 mm longer than the belt system provided for the driver's seating position. You explained that the extra 380 mm of belt webbing is meant "to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child restraint use."

You specifically asked whether the retractor designed by your client would be considered an ELR for the purposes of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you asked about the retractor durability tests of S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209. As a part of that test, a retractor is subjected to "45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." You asked whether, for the purposes of the section 5.2(k) test, the length of the driver's belt, which is 380 mm shorter than the passenger's belt, could be used to determine what constitutes 100 percent extension of the belt. You alternatively asked whether the test could be stopped before complete extension of the passenger belt.

As we understand your client's seat belt assembly, the amount of webbing in the driver's side assembly complies to the adjustment requirements of section 4.1(g) of Standard No. 209. The 380 mm's of extra webbing that is included in the passenger's seat belt assembly has been voluntarily added as a precaution to reduce the possibility of an occupant inadvertently actuating the ALR mode of the retractor. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that in normal operation by occupants covered by the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 209 the retractor functions exclusively as an ELR and thus can be used to meet the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. The agency views the 380 mm's of extra webbing as a voluntary addition not required by the standard. Therefore, for the purpose of section 5.2(k) of Standard No. 209, the agency will use the length of the driver's belt to determine what constitutes full extension of the webbing.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Interpretation of FMVSS 208 & 209 re: Emergency Locking Retractors

Dear Ms. Steed: On March 19, 1984, I met with Messrs. Hitchcock, Hunter, Smith and Nelson from the Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Gilkey from the Office of Enforcement to demonstrate a new design of emergency locking retractor that one of our clients will soon introduce on a new car in the United States. This innovative design addresses the problem of fitting a child seat to a seated position fitted with a seat belt equipped with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) rather than an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Many owners (and NHTSA) have expressed concern that a child seat may not be securely restrained by an ELR, or at least the vehicle operator may be unsure of the ELR's ability to secure the seat during normal vehicle operation, such as sudden stops or quick turns.

Our client has designed a unique ELR that automatically temporarily converts to an ALR mode to facilitate the fitting of a child seat. This is accomplished by merely pulling the belt all the way out of the retractor, at which point a click is heard, and the ELR converts to an ALR mode until the belt is again retracted back into the retractor. Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor reverts automatically to the normal ELR mode. This seat belt assembly, consisting of a slightly longer running loop combination lap and upper torso belt and the new ELR, will be installed only in forward-facing passenger seat positions -- not the driver's seat.

Paragraph S4.1.2.3.1(a) of FMVSS 208 requires the applicable vehicle to "have a seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2." S7.1.1 requires an upper torso restraint furnished in accordance with S4.1.2.3.1(a) to "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209." We believe that the retractor described herein and demonstrated to NHTSA on March 19, 1984 meets that requirement. That is to say that an ELR that is temporarily convertible to an ALR mode is still an ELR for the purpose of FMVSS 208.

Paragraph S5.2(k) of FMVSS 209 specifies requirements for retractor performance. As part of the durability requirements, an ELR "attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." The subject ELR cannot be tested to exactly 100 percent extension without engaging the ALR mode. This would, of course, lock the belt when it is stopped at the 50 percent point and prevent its re-extension without retraction to within 255-355 mm of being completely retracted. An additional 380 mm of webbing is provided in this installation. This amount was selected as the optimum to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child seat use. We feel it appropriate that this retractor be tested to the applicable portions of S5.2(k) using 50 to 100 percent of the belt length of the driver's belt, which is 38) mm shorter. Alternatively, if the 100 percent requirement is a nominal value only, the test could be stopped just before full extension to preclude unwanted conversion to the ALR mode during the retractor test.

We would appreciate your early confirmation of our understanding that this unique emergency locking retractor design complies with these paragraphs of FMVSS 208 and 209. Should for some reason you disagree with our interpretation, please treat this as a Petition for Rulemaking to amend such portions of the applicable standards as necessary to permit the use of what we believe to be an important and desirable safety innovation.

Sincerely, Donald M. Schwentker -- SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam2121

Dear Mr. Eckhold: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1975, requestin confirmation that a 1976 Ford Motor Company 'deluxe continuous-loop seat belt system' satisfies the requirements of Section 7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of a fron outboard seat belt assembly 'by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.; In the NHTSA's September 25, 1972, letter to Renault to which yo refer, the level of friction in the tongue is discussed and our position is stated that it must have a sufficiently low level to qualify the lap belt portion as 'automatically adjustable.' In your recent demonstration of the tongue frictions in the Ford 1976 'standard' and 'deluxe' continuous loop seat belt systems to NHTSA personnel, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of those systems.; The other restriction concerns the use of manual and automatic tensio relieving devices on the upper portion of continuous loop systems. In our letters of March 9, 1973, and March 27, 1975 (to General Motors), June 13, 1975 (to Chrysler Corporation), and September 5, 1975 (to Takata-Kojyo), the NHTSA has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso portion of seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable lap belt.' It is our view that the 1976 Ford deluxe continuous loop system does not have 'an individually adjustable lap belt' within the meaning of Standard No. 208. In this system slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by the 'window shade' tension relief device on the upper retractor is directly transferred to the lap belt, thus increasing the risk of submarining if a crash should occur. I would like to point out that issues related to tension relief devices are, however, still outstanding in an (sic) NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32, Notice 1).; I am enclosing a report on 'Comfort and Convenience Analysis o Advanced Restraint Systems' of August 1975. This study, conducted by the NHTSA Safety Research Laboratory on a number of different safety belt designs concludes that: 'Several aspects of the systems caused difficulties or confusion, but the single-loop 'window-shade' feature most frequently produced problems.' In light of our mutual desire to improve safety belt usage levels, I should also like to again recommend to your attention the results of the earlier NHTSA sponsored study 'Sources and Remedies for Restraint System Discomfort and Inconveniences' by Man Factors, Inc., that I sent to your company in January 1975.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: 10-007285 S5-1-4 William H Thompson III 108 School Bus Lighting Interp Letter

ID: nht80-2.23

DATE: 04/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Quester Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 29, 1980

NOA-30

J.P Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266

Dear Mr. Koziatek:

This responds to your letter of January 25, 1980, requesting an interpretation of section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standards No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) specifies that in the 20 mph test of forward facing child restraints with fixed or movable surfaces designed to restrain the child, the restraint system's belts are not to be attached "unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." You asked whether the crotch strap used in your Kantwet "One Step" Model-400 child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield used on that device. After reviewing the diagrams and description contained in your letter, I conclude that the crotch strap is not an integral part of the movable surface and thus must not be connected during the 20 mph test.

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 crotch strap used in the Kantwet "One Step" is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used. In contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the possibility that the upper torso restraint could be detached from the adjustment device. We urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the belts permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment device.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re: FMVSS 213-80 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION KANTWET "ONE STEP" MODEL 400

This letter is written to provide NHTSA with the rationale leading to the design and development of the new Questor Juvenile Furniture Company (QJFC) child restraint system (Kantwet "One Step" Model 400) and to request NHTSA's confirmation of the manner in which this particular child restraint system is to be tested to determine its compliance with FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 13, 1979. Most important, we have set forth information substantiating the fact that the crotch strap incorporated in our new combined harness/restraint is "an integral part of the fixed or movable surface" under paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, thereby permitting the fastening of this integral strap during test configuration II.

Much has been written about the lack of use of child restraint systems, their cost, and their incorrect or incomplete installation/use. These concerns are well documented and have been expressed by the general public, concerned groups interested in promoting improved child passenger safety, and NHTSA. NHTSA has obviously deliberated long and with great effort in an attempt to develop rulemaking that would address those aspects of child restraint system design and usage that increase child passenger protection when properly designed child restraint systems are correctly installed in passenger vehicles. FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1979, also attempts to protect the child passenger by requiring child restraint systems to meet certain minimum performance standards when they are improperly or incompletely installed in a passenger vehicle. While it is impossible to predict all potential incomplete or incorrect installations of child restraint systems in passenger vehicles, it has become apparent that certain omissions in child restraint system installations occur at a relatively high rate.

Tests have shown that child restraint systems installed with a top tether strap do reduce the occupant's relative head excursion, however these systems are often installed by the consumer without the top tether strap. The convenience armrest incorporated in some systems is also frequently misused in that it is placed in its lowered position with its restraining strap fastened, but the harness straps which are always part of such a system and which provide restraint for the system's occupant are often left unfastened. FMVSS 213-80 has considered these two improper installations of restraint systems and requires minimum occupant protection when the systems are tested under these improper conditions.

Devices for seating children in passenger vehicles were available to the consumer long before the advent of NHTSA and safety regulations for automobile occupants. Prior to NHTSA rulemaking in 1971, the majority of such child seating devices provided no protection for their occupants in the event of even low-speed vehicle accidents. However, since 1971, and particularly since 1974, there has been significant improvement in the crashworthiness of products available for seating children in passenger vehicles. The improvement has been such that child seats for automobile can now be truly classified as child restraints or, as some have suggested, "child protectors."

QJFC and its predecessor companies have been in the business of manufacturing and marketig child seating devices and restraint systems for more than 25 years. QJFC, perhaps more so than anyone else, has recognized the tremendous improvement in occupant protection now available to the consumer with crash-tested child restraints.

Likewise, QJFC has seen considerable shrinkage of the annual sales of child estraiit systems as their crashworthiness has improved and their cost has increased, as compared with the child seating devices formerly manufactured. QJFC has been concerned throughout this transition period that the consumer is not always interested in safety when he has a choice to make or that he is not fully cognizant of the possible consequences when a crash-tested child restraint system is, first, not purchased and, second, not used properly when purchased.

Since 1972, QJFC has designed and introduced five child restraint systems to the marketplace. Each of these systems was designed to meet crash testing criteria. As the state of the art improved and as more meaningful testing criteria were learned or published, the individual restraint systems were re-designed or discontinued, to be succeeded by designs which improved crashworthiness. Concurrently with efforts to improve the crashworthiness of restraint systems, QJFC recognized the sensitivity of the marketplace to the cost and the ease of use of child restraint systems. This led to the design of the Kantwet "Care Seat," the first restraint system marketed which provided crash protection for the occupant from birth through 43 pounds. The system was designed to (and did) meet the maximum relative head excursion of 18 inches forward of the forwardmost point of the car seat back without the use of a top tether anchor strap.

To provide a crash-tested restraint system for children from birth to 17 pounds, at the lowest possible cost. QJFC designed and marketed the Infanseat "Dyn-O-Mite" child restraint. This product, with its attractive pricing and broad distribution, has been well-received by the consumer and has served to re-emphasize the sensitivity of the marketplace to price and ease of use.

These comments are offered to indicate the awareness that QJFC has of the marketability and proper installation of child restraint systems. In addition to our own design and market experiences, we agree with the objectives NHTSA has established to improve the performance of the restraints, increase the use, and minimize their misuse.

To this end, QJFC has taken the sum total of its 25 years of marketing experience and combined this with NHTSA's objectives to design its sixth new crashworthy child restraint system since 1972. This system, the Kantwet "One Step" car seat, Model 400, is of a design that is a significant departure from previously available child restraint systems, thus incorporating features not necessarily familiar to NHTSA or the general public. Certain aspects of the design of the "One Step" will require interpretation in order to test the restraint properly against FMVSS 213-80.

The features of the Kantwet "One Step" design can best be understood by referring to various drawings in conjunction with the description that follows. The drawings are enclosed with this letter.

The system consists of three main parts: the tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, and a harness/shield restraint. These are shown in Figure 1. Combining these three main parts allows the assembly to be used as a rear-facing system for infants and as an upright forward-facing system for children who weigh more than 17 pounds but less than 43 pounds, with this mode also capable of being used in a forward-facing reclined position. Thus, a single purchase enables the consumer to provide protection for his child from birth through 42 pounds in weight.

Dynamic testing has been conducted on prototype and production mode is of the "One Step," and the tests have indicated excellent compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS 213-80 in all three installation positions. These dynamic tests have been conducted at a simulated impact of 30 mph, and the average maximum relative head excursion achieved without the use of a top tether strap has been less than 32 inches. Head injury criteria and average chest accelerations have been well within requirements on those occasions when instrumented test dummies were used.

These favorable test results are attributable to the combination of a harness and an impact shield restraint system where in the most desirable features of a five-point harness and an impact shield have been combined. The single greatest criticism by the consumer of an impact shield-type of restraint has always been the difficulty of keeping the occupant within the system. The freedom of movement available to the occupant of an impact shield restraint allows the occupant not only to climb out of the system but also, if he remains in it, to be out of the ideal position to absorb effectively the forces imposed during an accident. A five-point harness restraint system distributes crash forces satisfactorily to the occupant; however, the webbing of such a system, with continued use, becomes entangled and crossed over itself, and it begins to "rope" or twist upon itself. This roping and twisting of the webbing thus imposes higher localized loading to the occupant in a crash; also, in many cases, the consumer fails to utilize the five-point harness when placing a child in such a system because he does not wish to take the time to untangle and straighten the webbing first.

The "One Step" restraint system integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. This arrangement provides some unique features and advantages not heretofore available with child restraint systems. These advantages are described below and shown in the appended drawings.

1. The security of a five-point harness system is provided, thus retaining the occupant, with the further guarantee that the occupant will be properly positioned in the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface is available with the impact shield located at the lower torso area, to distribute impact forces over as large an area as possible.

3. While the impact shield is designed to distribute impact forces to the lower torso area, it is also shaped in such a manner and positioned so that its lower surface rests against the occupant's upper thigh. This placement eliminates the need for a separate lap belt assembly for restraint of the lower torso. Thus, the possibility of a lap belt assembly's roping, twisting, and cutting into the pelvic area has been completely obviated. The intrusion of lap belts into the hip joint of test dummies has frequently been observed during crash testing in spite of the use of a crotch strap on a five-point harness restraint.

4. The impact shield, in addition to serving the aforementioned functions, also simulates the buckle of a five-point harness system in that it accepts the ends of the upper torso belts and provides a means of connecting the crotch strap to itself. Thus, the impact shield serves a multiplicity of purposes, as well as providing a means of "shielding" the occupant's torso and extremities against certain metal hardware items.

Reference to Figures 1 and 2 will highlight the similarities between a conventional five-point harness restraint system and integrated "One Step" combination harness/shield restraint system. The impact shield of the "One Step" essentially replaces both the retaining buckle and the lap belt of a typical five-point harness system, as shown in Figure 2. Both the impact shield and the buckle serve the same purpose of accumulating the belts and of fastening them together.

5. The belts of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system to and around the impact shield so that their "lie flat" position is guaranteed. Reference to Figures 1 and 3 clearly illustrates this. When the impact shield is raised or lowered for entrance or egress of the occupant, the shield maintains this "lie flat" condition of the upper torso belts, preventing any possibility of their roping, twisting, or becoming entangled with themselves or any other belting. Figure 4 shows the impact shield being raised, with the upper torso belts being lifted simultaneously from the occupant.

6. Since the upper torso belts and the crotch strap are sewed together to form a continuous loop about the restraint's occupant, adjustment of the upper torso belts automatically brings the crotch strap to its corrent length and the impact shield to its correct position for the size of the occupant. The restraint system can thus "grow" with the occupant or adjust to the amount of clothing worn by the child since the impact shield contacts its upper thighs.

7. Reference to Figure 3 shows the location of metal adjustment hardware on the underside of the impact shield. It can be seen that all hardware is away from the occupant and does not contact him. This feature eliminates the possibility of over-heated metal components burning the occupant on hot summer days, a situation that NHTSA has requested manufacturers to correct.

8. Further reference to Figure 3 shows the buckle which fastens the entire harness/shield restraint system together under the impact shield and therefore out of reach of the occupant. This feature prevents the child from purposely or inadvertently releasing the buckle and thus defeating the restraint. NHTSA has identified the release of buckles on five-point harness systems as being a significant problem and has tried to minimize the occurrence by requiring manufacturers to have a minimum release force for their buckles. The "One Step" restraint system has thus gone "one step" beyond NHTSA's requirements and eliminated accidental buckle release entirely.

9. Adjustment of the entire restraint system is accomplished simply by pulling on the ends of the upper torso restraint belts, as shown in Figure 3. As stated previously, this action adjusts the entire system to "fit" the occupant correctly and position him in the location and posture intended to absorb impact forces best. Further, once the adjustment is made, it cannot be loosened accidentally by the occupant, not only because the adjustment means is located out of reach but also because a separate and distinct secondary action is needed to pull the belts back from their adjusted length. To loosen the restraint's adjusted length of belting, it is necessary to lift one portion of the belt-adjusting mechanism, as shown in Figure 5, before the belting can be loosened.

Two important advantages result from this feature. First, the child cannot purposely or accidentally loosen the restraint through his movements or through playing with the strap slides that are the usual method of adjusting harness belting. Thus the child is always properly positioned to absorb impact forces during an accident. Second, the restraint system need not be adjusted each time it is occupied. Once the system has been adjusted to fit the child, the same "fit" will be available the next time the restraint is used since it will retain its length of webbing until the webbing length is purposely changed through the conscious actions shown in Figure 5.

10. Figure 6 is an enlarged view of the hardware as it is located under the impact shield. This view illustrates the routing of the upper torso belting through the adjustment hardware and also shows that the hardware itself is permanently fastened to the shield, thus preventing disengagement and possible loss of hardware from the system.

The combination of the above features makes the "One Step" child restraint the most convenient system to use. When the impact shield is raised, all belting is lifted clear of the seating surface, thus presenting an unobstructed area for the occupant. Once the child is seated, there is no need to search for belting or hardware under him. When the impact shield is lowered, the upper torso belts are brought into correct position over the child's shoulders and held in correct alignment to prevent their slipping from his shoulders since the belts are "fixed" in locations at either end of the upper torso portion of the belts. When not occupied, the belts are held in proper relationship to themselves and to the system itself, which precludes their roping, entanglement, and twisting. Once placed in a vehicle, the "One Step" can remain in the car, secured by the auto's lap belt, regardless of its position either forward-facing or rearward-facing, since the lap belt is routed under the restraint system's seating surface for all the restraint's positions. (Most other rearward-facing restraint systems are designed so that the vehicle belt used to retain the system in the vehicle passes over the occupant, which means the lap belt must be detached for the child's egress, with subsequent restraint usage requiring re-connection and adjustment of the vehicle belt.) Once the "One Step" is adjusted to "fit" the child, it need not be "re-fitted" each time it is used unless the child has increased in stature or wears bulky winter clothing since the adjustment mechanism retains the length of the adjusted belts until they are consciously altered.

**INSERT FIGURES**

QJFC believes the Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint system to be the most convenient crash-tested child restraint system available for use by children from birth through 42 pounds in weight. It is believed that this restraint incorporates the best knowledge and experience QJFC has gained in over 25 years of manufacturing and marketing juvenile products plus the knowledge NHTSA has provided to manufacturers of child restraint systems regarding the crashworthiness that such systems must provide.

It is QJFC's belief that when tested according to test configuration II, installation of the "One Step" system (as described in paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, published in the Federal Register of December 13, 1979) permits fastening of the integral crotch strap of the harness/shield restraint. NHTSA confirmation of this installation procedure for conducting test configuration II is requested.

I would be pleased to visit NHTSA personally to describe and discuss the "One Step" child restraint further, should that be desired.

Yours truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services

Attachments

JPK:MG

*Insert Figure 3, 4, 5, and 6 Here

ID: nht80-2.5

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartman, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 17, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartman, Braun & Halper Suite 1015 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

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

You asked whether a "foam tray" marketed as an accessory for a child restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray "may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners" and is made of polyurethane foam and "does not contain any metal or solid parts." The purpose of the device is "to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides."

Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.

You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained that Strolee is considering the use of "an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child." The impact shield "would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode." When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.

The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed or movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.

You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by the agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

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

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was a pleasure for Mr. Hyde and me to meet with you and your associates concerning the above referenced car seat regulations. As you know, our firm represents Strolee and we are writing this letter to you on their behalf.

We are sending you under separate cover a letter setting forth in detail our objections to what we perceive to be the ambiguities in the standard and our comments in relation thereto. The purpose of this letter is to seek your opinion under the existing standard concerning two areas of concern to our client. They are as follows:

1) Section 5.2.2.2 provides that each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or moveable surface directly forward of the dummy. Our client markets an accessory for use with its car seat which, for purposes of convenience, we would label as a "foam tray". This tray is made of polyurethane foam. It is not a part of the car seat and is sold totally separate and independent from the car seat. It may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners. It does not contain any metal or solid parts. It can be used by the parent for other purposes, but it is marketed primarily as an accessory for the car seat. The purpose of the foam tray is to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides. We believe it will keep the child occupied and thus promote the use of the seat by keeping the child happy and engaged in his own activities. It should prevent boredom on long trips in a car seat.

The foam tray is patented and our client is the licensee of the patent owner. We desire to have your interpretation as to whether our client can continue to market this tray. In the opinion of our client, it does not present a safety hazard and does not present any barrier as to whether or not a parent affixes the harness straps that are a part of the car seat.

2) Section 6.1.2 provides for the dynamic test procedure. Section 6.1.2.1.2 provides what is called "Test Configuration II", which is the test required at twenty miles per hour without the tether strap affixed and without the restraining straps of the system affixed to the dummy. One of the systems under consideration by our client would be the use of an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child. It is contemplated that the impact shield would be removeable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode. If such is the case, then the five point harness, that is an integral part of the Strolee car seat, would be used as the restraining system. The car seat would be affixed to the car in the usual manner. Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested as to whether the Strolee car seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II. In this connection, your attention is respectively directed to the difference between the Strolee restraint system and the system employed by the Bobby-Mac car seat. With the Bobby-Mac car seat, when the removeable shield is taken off of the car seat, the sole restraining device that affixes the car seat to the automobile does not function properly. Such a condition does not exist in the Strolee seat. The attachment of the automobile seat belt to the car seat is totally independent of the system designed to hold the child in the car seat.

The foregoing request for your interpretation is not to be deemed our acquiesence in the legal propriety of the regulations. While our client does not contest your right to regulate the juvenile car seat, it has strong objections to the regulations themselves and, as appears from my other letter, the apparent discriminatory manner in which these regulations may be enforced.

May we please hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

One final point, in our meeting, you indicated that you will be issuing a number of interpretive opinions in response to manufacturers' inquiries of your department. We would appreciate receiving written copies of all interpretive opinions that are published by your department.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: aiam3532

Dear Mr. Ziwica: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use o informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80 *Controls and Displays*, 105 *Hydraulic Brake Systems* and 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*.; Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readou displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101- 80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.; The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice.; I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM: >>>Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as wel as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction.<<<; We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter t assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made.; The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal woul have on your questions.; *Question 1* Your first question asks whether the words 'Fasten Seat Belts' may b used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208.the answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states:; >>>Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of S571.208 would be amended to permi the words 'Fasten Belts' or Fasten Seat Belts' as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays.<<<; *Question 2* Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellatio of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no.; While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale an telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent of that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that the light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated the telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the drive under all daytime and nighttime conditions.; We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltal depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable.; Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system fo automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened.; *Question 3* Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use a information readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard NO. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal.; Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states: >>>Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not les than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red....<<<; It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters an glazing of an information readout display would constitute a 'lens labeled in letters.' This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5.; *Question 4* Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout displa specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard NO. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no.; Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performanc requirements for brake system indicators lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps.; It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets th requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements.; *Question 5* Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informationa readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language:; >>>S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informationa readout display--<<<; >>>(a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a highe one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions.<<<; >>>(b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variabl light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated.<<<; >>>(c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variabl light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level.<<<; The agency does find the system that you are considering developin very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that your might be considering.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry F. Wort; Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York (Std. 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith

TEXT:

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764

This responds to your May 26, 1967, letter to me asking about our requirements in Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, for restraining barriers and seat back height. I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements. I n this discussion, I would also like to go over preemption issues that are raised by the state law you describe.

In your letter, you said that Illinois has recently enacted a law requiring 28-inch-high seat backs on new large school buses (i.e., buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds). You ask whether the 28-inch-high seat backs w ould negate the requirement for a restraining barrier in front of the front passenger seat. The answer is no.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 specifies: "Each vehicle shall be equipped with 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 refe rence point . . . ." The standard makes no exception for any type of school bus passenger seat. The reason for the broad application is clear, since restraining barriers are needed to compartmentalize the seating area.

Your second question was whether the height of the restraining barrier must be as high as the height of the extended seat back. The answer is no. The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. A restraining barrier must therefore only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back su rface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

The preemption issue you raise relates to the Illinois law mandating the 28-inch-high seat backs and FMVSS 222's seat back height requirement. I have enclosed a copy of our recent letter to Mr. Melvin Smith of your Department which explains that the Illi nois law for 28-inch high seat backs is preempted by Federal law. However, as discussed in our letter, the State may require the high seat backs for public school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(See 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith; also see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York)

May 26, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

When a school bus with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 10,000 pounds is equipped with passenger seats having 28 inch seat backs (i.e., all backs about 4 inches higher than standard seat backs), will federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 (49 CFR 571.222) require a restraining barrier for each front seat?

If a restraining barrier is required for each front seat having a 28 inch high seat back, in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 10,000 pounds, must the height or that barrier match the seat back height:

Illinois law requires every Type I school bus (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) manufactured after June 30, 1987 and sold, purchased, or used as a school bus within Illinois to be "equipped with passenger seat backs having a seat back height of 28 inches". A bus body manufacturer has pointed out that to accommodate the higher backs either the bus body must be longer or "knee clearance" must be reduced throughout the bus. Omitting the two front barriers would provide additional space to accommodate the high seat backs without lengthening buses or shortening knee clearances.

We will be most grateful for an immediate answer to our questions.

Sincerely,

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety

ID: nht89-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-2-90 TO DENNIS D. FURR FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; A35; STD. 222; HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE 17

TEXT:

The following is to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and its lack of enforcement on the school bus manufacturers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for new school buses as a condition of sale.

The following is also to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, which directs the States to use the passive restraint system/ bench seat by a seating position that is less than the 15 inch seating position required in Standard 222, S4.1 as directed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If this is not the correct format, and or procedure, please advise me of the correct format, and or procedure.

The reason for this petition stems from the fact that school bus manufacturers are rating some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat, and in doing so has nullified the safety feature s of the passive restraint system, and by their rating of the school bus has placed one third of the school buses rated capacity outside of the head, and leg impact zones of the passive restraint system.

The rating of some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat by the school bus manufacturers has also encouraged the States/school districts to order school buses from the manufacturers that are not in compliance to the Federal Standards for the passive restraint system as a condition of sale when following Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the States/school districts.

Understanding that in order for the occupant to be protected by the protective compartment of the passive restraint system, the occupant must be seated inside of the impact zones of the head, and legs, and the rated capacity of the school bus has to be a reflection of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat.

In considering this petition two things has been kept in mind.

The first is the Standard for the passive restraint system is the minimum specifications.

The second is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. : 1392 (f);

Safety Standard 222, S4.1; "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number."

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d); "Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continu e in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this secti on shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard."

The school buses that are rated at 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat is those school buses equipped with bench seats that when divided by the figure 15 in S4.1, ends in a decimal of point five or more, and is carried to the next whole number.

As an example, the 39 inch bench seat is being rated for 3 passengers, but when following S4.1, and the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the 39 inch bench seat is designed for only 2 passengers.

By the school bus manufacturers rating the 39 inch bench seat for 3 passengers, this gives each passenger a 13 inch seating position.

The number of seating positions in S4.1 is considered by the figure 15, and not by the figure 13.

It is quite true that the figure "15" in S4.1, FMVSS 222 is not defined as a seating width, minimum or otherwise.

It is my understanding that the specifications in FMVSS 222 is minimum specifications by direction of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and following the instructions in S4.1, there should not be any doubt what the figure "15" is.

"The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W".

The symbol "W" is the product of division, and the answer to the two part formula.

"And calculated as the bench width in inches."

The bench width in inches is the first part of a two part formula, and is a variable.

"Divided by 15" is the instructions to divide, and the figure "15" is the second part to the two part formula, and is the only known fact.

Since the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", it is obvious that the only known fact which is the figure "15" has to be the width of "a" seating position.

"And rounded to the nearest whole number" is additional instructions to ensure that any seating position less than 15 inches is not included in the product of the formula.

It is common practice to carry any decimal 5 tenths and over to the next whole number.

However the instructions in S4.1 says "and rounded to the nearest whole number.", and for the 39 inch bench seat, I understand that to mean 2, understanding that any decimal is not a whole number.

Also understanding that S4.1 does not say rounded to the "next" whole number, which would have included the decimal.

To be sure that a decimal part of the figure "15" can not be rounded to the "next" whole number as a condition of sale, you only have to understand the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d);

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a sate shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Safety Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard ."

Understanding the decimal part in the product of the formula is not identical to the figure "15: in S4.1, and can not be considered as "a" seating position, but is currently being counted as a whole seating position when rating some, but not all of the p assive restraint systems as a condition of sale by the school bus manufacturers.

Again, the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", and the figure "15" is the specification in S4.1 The number of seating positions is a variable, dependent upon the length of the individual passive restraint system/bench sea t, and is not a specification.

As a result, the number of seating positions in a bench seat as a condition of sale must reflect the number of 15 inch seating position, or the number of seating positions that is greater than the 15 inch seating position that

is in the individual bench seat, and the rated capacity of the school bus must reflect that number.

I have been told the use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38 inch wide seat.), and for a 39 inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger tha n the hip width of a 5th percentile adult female.

(Refer to your letter to Congressman Wolpe, dated February 23, 1989.)

In order to get the figure "15" in S4.1 to produce a minimum seating position of 13 inches in a 39 inch bench seat you would have to divide the 39 inch bench seat by 15, round the 2.6 to the next whole number to get 3. Then divide the 39 inch bench seat again by the 3 to get the 13 inch seating position.

I do not see that formula in S4.1, and do not understand the provisions in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act to permit the NHTSA, or the school bus manufacturers to reword S4.1 to obtain the exceeded number of seating positions in a bench seat for ra ting the school bus as a condition of sale.

Understanding that the NHTSA can exceed the number of designed seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat for testing, (their use), and can provide their own formula for doing so.

However, as a condition of sale, FMVSS 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act has to be followed.

For the NHTSA to permit the school bus manufacturers to rate the school bus by the NHTSA's formula for testing the bench seat, and as a condition of sale, is a deliberate distortion of FMVSS 222. S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

By the manufacturers of the passive restraint system borrowing the 3 to the 39 inch bench seat that the NHTSA has used for testing, the manufacturers have not followed, or complied by FMVSS 222, S4.1 as a condition of sale.

I have also been told that the 13 inch seating position in the 39 inch bench seat is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female.

HSPG means Highway Safety Program Guideline, and its recommendations is to the states for operating their school buses, and is not enforceable by the NHTSA because it is only a guideline, recommended, and directed to the States, and is not a Safety Stand ard that the manufacturers have to comply to.

FMVSS means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and is requirements for the school bus manufacturers to follow, and be in compliance with, before the school bus can be sold to the public, and is enforceable by the NHTSA.

If anything is to be consistent, Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 should be consistent with Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and not vice versa.

Any seating position less than the 15 inch seating position in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1 is pre-empted under the provisions of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The NHTSA has in an elective guideline given directions to the States to use a seating position that is less than required in the enforceable FMVSS 222 when following the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearl y states;

Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, (no State or political subdivision of a state) shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

Understanding if a State did elect HSPG 17 either by law, or history of use by the 13 inch seating position by the school districts, the States/school districts has established a safety standard that is not identical to the applicable Federal Standard, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Also understanding that if a State requested a school bus manufacturer to deliver a school bus with a rated capacity based on the 13 inch seating position, and the school bus manufacturer complied to the State, the school bus manufacturer has not complie d to the applicable Standard as a condition of sale.

To understand that only a seating position greater than, or equal to the 15 inch seating position can be specified either as a states specification, recommended in another Safety Standard, or used for rating a new school bus you only have to follow the s ame logic in the Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6.

You can also see that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female in HSPG 17 is a contradiction to the NHTSA's own opinion for the requirements of a states specification.

Understanding that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female does not meet, or exceed the requirements in FMVSS 222, S4.1.

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS), requested that the seat back height be raised from the 20 inch level specified by Safety Standard 222 to a 24 inch level. While PAS's request was denied, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave this opinion, in part;

"Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat back height (S5.1.2) which manufacturers many exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra tion's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning seat back height of school

bus seating would also have to specify a minimum height identical to the Federal requirement.

Following this same logic for the minimum seating position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion "would have read".

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seating position (S4.1) which manufacturers may exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning a seating position width of school bus seating would also have to specify a minimum seating position identical to the Federal requirement.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, to reflect the 15 inch seating position as required in Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require the school bus manufacturers to rate their school buses by the actual number of 15 inch seating positions in the individual passive restraint system/bench seat that is on the school bus as a condition of sale, and as required in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide me with the formula that was developed that provided the pounds of force/inch-pounds of energy in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 that is indicated by the Symbol "W" being the force of 700W pounds in S5.1.3.2, the 350W pounds in S5.1.3.3, the 4,000W inch-pounds in S5.1.3.4, the 2,200 pounds of force in S5.1.4 (a), the 50 pounds of force in S5.1.4, (b), and the 2,800W inch pounds in S5.1.4.1.

Since there is a relationship between the symbol "W" and the pounds of force, and or the inch pounds of energy applied to the passive restraint system in testing, what percentile is the pounds of force/inch pounds designed to protect?

I would also like to know the source of the data for the percentiles listed in S7.1.3 in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.