ID: Conklin_6526

William Conklin, Esq.
410 Central Avenue
Strain Building, Suite 309
Great Falls, MT 59403-2049




Dear Mr. Conklin:

This responds to your letter in which you asked several questions about the requirements for safety belts under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.You specifically asked about the requirements for rear side-facing seats in a 1999 van. As explained below, the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 depend in part on the type of vehicle in which the seats were installed and on the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

In your letter you asked about the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 with respect to a 1999 van used to transport criminal-detainees.You stated that the back of the van is equipped with "an expanded metal cage" that contains two side-facing bench seats.You then asked if the bench seats were required to have safety belts.

I note that we do not have sufficient information about the van in question.Therefore, I will discuss generally the seat belt requirements for side-facing rear seats in vans.

Generally, manufacturers are required to manufacture vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.49 U.S.C. 30112 provides that:

A person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

In general, our regulations apply to vehicles up to the point of their first retail sale.

The applicability of requirements under FMVSS No. 208 is specific to vehicle-type. The seat belt requirements for seats as you described, and the appropriate citations, were essentially the same in 1999 as those that currently apply.A vehicle originally manufactured as you described effectively would be required to have a Type 1 (lap-only) or Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt installed at each rear side-facing designated seating position if:

• the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle that has either a gross vehicle weight rating which is greater than 8,500 pounds, but not greater than 10,000 pounds, or has an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.3); or
• the vehicle is a bus (i.e., a vehicle designed to carry 10 or more persons) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4.3.2).

The vehicle would not be required to have seat belts at the rear side-facing designated seating positions if:

• the vehicle is classified as a bus and has a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.4.3.1);
• the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.3.2; the vehicle could instead comply with specified crash requirements); or
• the vehicle is a truck or a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds.

We note that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at rear side-facing designated seating positions beginning September 1, 2007 (see, 69 Federal Register 70904; December 8, 2004).

Finally, if the side-facing seats were added to a certified, completed vehicle by a dealer or distributor prior to first retail sale of the vehicle, we would consider that party an "alterer" (see, 49 CFR 567.7).Accordingly, the vehicle as altered would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112).

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/3/05

ID: nht75-4.30

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Takata Kojyo's July 29, 1975, question whether Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, or Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, prohibits on a "continuous loop" three-point belt system the use of a clip between the outboard attachment point of the lap belt portion and the sliding buckle tongue which engages the inboard attachment hardware. The clip is used to prevent the sliding buckle tongue from falling to the floor when the belt system is retracted after use.

Standard No. 209 contains no provision which prohibits use of the clip. Section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of seat belts "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." In continuous loop systems, the single retractor must meet this adjustment requirement as well as that for the upper torso portion. At this time, the NHTSA has interpreted S7.1.1 to permit the use of clips which restrict movement of the webbing, but a proposal is outstanding that would restrict the use of certain clips to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable" lap belt. The language of that proposal is intended to strictly limit the use of clips which restrict webbing movement. In any case, Standard No. 208 does not at this time prevent use of the clip you describe.

It is noted that the clip could be misadjusted so that slack is introduced in the lap belt, permitting submarining in the event of a crash. This problem could be avoided by permanently attaching the clip at a low enough position so that the belt would be automatically adjustable even for a 50th percentile 6 year old child without possibility of misadjustment. This permanent location could presumably still be high enough on the belt to provide for convenient stowage of the belt tongue after use.

SINCERELY,

July 29, 1975

James Gregory Administrator National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Question of a part especially assemblied in a safety seat belt

May we ask your permission directly to ask a underneath question?

Regarding a model of Type II of safety seat belt sketched in an enclosed sheet -- a looped type with a jointless webbing --, as you see in it, there is a "CLIP" provided on the harnessing side of webbing of the seat belt, the CLIP of which is for preventing slipperily falling of "THROUGH TONGUE" along the webbing in unused case of the belt.

The present rules FMVSS 208 & 209 have both no inspections or descriptions concerning the CLIP. So we would ask you if providing or using such a clip on a seat belt is out of the Rule or the Spec, or is regarded being allowed.

We are sincerely looking forward your kind instruction.

Mitsuru Masada Chief of Development & Control Department for Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd.

SASH GUIDE

THROUGH TONGUE

WEBBING

CLIP

RETRACTOR

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 11737JUM.JC2

Mr. J.H. Brown
President
Jumpin= Jac=s F.N.
P.O. Box 526146
Miami, FL 33152-6146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 11, 1996 letter to William Boehly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Research and Development. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You ask for this agency=s Aappraisal and we hope NHTSA approval@ of a product that you are seeking to develop, which you call the APT-103 Child Protector Safety Harness.@ You enclosed a brochure on the PT-103 harness in your letter. I note that you marked the word AConfidential@ on the brochure. In an April 16, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and brochure in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established 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 information set forth in your letter.

According to the brochure, the PT-103 consists of a vest that would cover the child=s chest, a foam vest- like garment for the child=s neck (which looks like a Alife preserver@ used on

water), and a series of padded straps that would form a type of headgear for the child=s head. The brochure implies in several places that children are better protected using the PT-103 harness and a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt than with the lap and shoulder belt alone.

In the telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you clarified an important point about your product. You explained that the PT-103 is not attached in any manner to the vehicle=s belt system, and is not intended to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of restraining the child. Instead, the PT-103 is simply a garment consisting of a padded vest, neckware and headgear, intended for a child restrained in the vehicle=s seat belts or in a child seat. The idea is for the child to be wearing a protective garment in the event of a crash.

NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as ('30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the statute. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. First is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used in motor vehicles. While you indicated that the PT-103 can also be used in boats and for contact sports, you informed Ms. Fujita that its major use will be in automobiles. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness would be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is subject to NHTSA=s authority.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the PT-103. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a padded garment that can be used with a child safety seat or with the vehicle=s belt system.

While no standard applies to the PT-103, under our statute all items of motor vehicle equipment must not contain any safety-related defects. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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 would like to note a few concerns about the brochure you enclosed on the PT-103. It describes the PT-103 as being available in a size that is suitable for use with children weighing 15 to 25 pounds (lb). This description implies that the harness is suitable for use by infants and small children, and that these children can be restrained using a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt system. That practice may not be best for the child.

NHTSA believes, based on studies, that children should be restrained in rear-facing child seats until they are at least 12 months old (22 lb), and should not be placed in a restraint system that faces the child forward. A rear-facing child seat is needed so that, in a crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Similarly, we believe small children should use a child restraint system until they outgrow their child seat. To avoid possibly misleading consumers into moving their children into a vehicle belt system before the child is developed enough for it, the PT-103 should be recommended only for older children.

Another concern relates to the fact that the harnesses in a child seat works best when used snugly with minimal padding or heavy clothing between the child and the safety seat. Similarly, a safety belt system works best with minimum slack. Excessive padding can compress in crash, introducing too much slack in the belt system that can cause the child occupant to be fully or partially ejected in a crash. A vest system that consisted of too much padding may have that negative effect.

Another concern relates to the possibility that some consumers may think your device is supposed to replace a child seat or vehicle seat belt system as the means of restraining a child in a crash. We suggest you prominently label the device as not being intended for use as a child restraint system, and clearly instruct consumers of this in advertising and other literature included with the PT-103. Further, you refer to the device as a Asafety harness.@ The term Aharness@ has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a type of child restraint system. We are concerned that calling your device a Asafety harness@ could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability as a child restraint system, which may result in some consumers attaching the PT-103 to the vehicle with the vehicle=s belts, as they would with other harnesses (which are Achild restraints@). With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "safety harness@ in naming the PT-103.

Finally, we also note the photograph on page five of the brochure, showing children restrained in vehicle lap and shoulder belts A(Without PT-103),@ apparently is intended to show Abefore@ and Aafter@ shots of what happens in a crash without your device, to illustrate a need for the PT-103. The Aafter@ shot shows the childrens= heads between their knees, apparently to depict that in a crash situation a child would have no upper torso restraint whatsoever. We wish to point out that this is probably misleading, because the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder belt would provide restraint in the type of emergency situation presumably depicted in the photograph. Thus, the situation shown in the Aafter@ shot is not realistic.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/10/96

ID: aiam4127

Dear Mr. DuMond: Thank you for your November 13, 1985 letter to our office enclosing blueprint illustrating maximum seat spacing and knee clearance on Blue Bird's school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our requirements for seat spacing, because it appears that the method used in the blue print to measure the distance between school bus seats is not entirely consistent with the specifications of S5.2.1.; Paragraph S5.2 of the standard requires either a seat back or restraining barrier within 24 inches of each designated seating position's seating reference point (SRP). Under S5.2.1, the 24-inch distance is measured from the SRP to the rear surface of the forward seat back or restraining barrier. Therefore, the distance from the SRP would not be measured to a point forward of that surface, as depicted in your blueprint.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dennis J. Slyman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Dennis J. Slyman, Esq. 101 N. Main Street Greensburg, PA 15601 Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act. You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985, with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of the sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence. I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretation of the Safety Act from out vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine. You asked whether your client violated Section 10B and 125 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation. Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of the Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat in a used vehicle. If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992) would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-5.40

DATE: 10/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1971, in which you request clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints". You state that you are of the opinion that "a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable is in conflict with the prime object of the standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisons."

Standard No. 202 does not prohibit head restraints from being adjustable in an up-and-down direction, as long as the top of the restraint, at its fully extended design adjustment position, is at least 27.5 inches above the seating reference point (S4(b)(1)). While some of these adjustable head restraints may not be completely effective in cases where they are placed at their lowest adjustment position and used by tall drivers, we have determined that this design, as long as it meets the requirements of the standard, is a minimum performance level that meets the need for motor vehicle safety. Consequently, use of these types of restraints does not conflict with the standard.

The standard establishes only a minimum performance level, however, and the NHTSA endorces efforts by manufacturers to exceed the

2 requirements is establishes. Many manufacturers have installed head restraints in their vehicles that meet the standard's requirements yet do not present the disadvantages you describe.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ASTON MARTIN LAGONDA LIMITED

September 8 1971

Douglas W. Toms, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, National Highway Traffic Administration,

As designers and manufacturers of the Aston Martin DBS V8 car, currently being marketed in U.S.A., we are concerned at what appears to be a very loose interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints - Passenger Cars, Section 5.4(b), adopted by certain American automobile manufacturers.

Aston Martin Lagonda have been concerned for many years with primary and secondary safety aspects of the car, and we hold the view that a head restraint system that can be retracted into the seat and thus made ineffective by virtue of being adjustable, is in conflict with the prime object of the Standard in reducing the frequency and severity of neck injuries in rear end or other collisions.

We would appreciate clarification on this point, for our concern is to maintain the highest standard of interior safety as exemplified by our current production car.

H. Beach Director of Engineering

c.c. Mr. R. Layland, President, A.M.L. Inc. Mr. J. B. Walker, Vehicle Safety Engineer, A.M.L. Limited.

ID: nht90-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN W. GARRINGER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 4751; LETTER DATED 02/01/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am ple ased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard N o. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the winds hield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmitta nce requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continue s to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering i noperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the ti nting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 24605Pitman_vest_with_LATCH

Ms. Elizabeth J. Pitman
13970 S.W. 72^nd Avenue
Portland, OR 97223-8036

Dear Ms. Pitman:

This responds to your letter concerning a child harness system that you would like to manufacture. You ask whether your design would meet all the requirements set forth in Standards No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems."

According to the sketches you provided, the harness is designed to attach to a vehicle seat using either a vehicle lap belt or the two lower bars of a vehicles "LATCH" ^[1] system. There also is a top "tether strap." In vehicle seating positions that lack a tether anchor, the tether strap will wrap around the vehicle seat back. You informed Dee Fujita of my staff in an October 15, 2002, telephone call that the harness does not need the tether strap to meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." You stated that the tether strap is provided "to reinforce the seat back."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding. Thus, we are unable to render an opinion as to whether your harness would meet the requirements of Standard No. 213. (Standard No. 225 applies to motor vehicles and thus would not apply to your product.) Further, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it would be your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements. ^[2]

We can make the following interpretation of Standard No. 213s requirements as applied to your product. Child restraint harness systems are not required by Standard No. 213 to have attachments ("LATCH components") that enable the restraint to connect to a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle. We excluded harnesses from the requirement out of practicability concerns. However, if you provide LATCH components on your harness, the harness must be able to meet Standard No. 213s performance requirements when attached using the LATCH components. Under S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C) of the standard, we will attach the harness to the LATCH system "in accordance with the manufacturers instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1." Further, the LATCH components, including the tether strap, must not make inoperative the attaching and performance of the harness with the seat belt.

We would also like to observe that vehicle manufacturers design their vehicle seats to comply with the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, "Seating Systems." The wrap-around tether belt could impose an additional load on the vehicle seat back in a crash.

You also ask whether the harness is "acceptable to replace a booster seat in [sic] a standard car seat."We regret that we cannot provide the opinion you seek. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, we are unfamiliar with the use of LATCH components on harnesses.

If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/13/03





---




^[1] "LATCH" is a term developed by industry and retail groups referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225. LATCH stands for "lower anchorages and tethers for children." For convenience, we will use the term in this letter.

^[2] For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety‑related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either: (a) repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (b) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

ID: 12-001952 Matheny capacity includes driver (Standard No. 217)

ID: aiam4885

"Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows: In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. You noted, however, that '(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.l.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'' You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding. In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft. Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to 'passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.' Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214. With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";