ID: 24421safeline_LATCH_buckle

Mr. Keith Poulson
Vice President of Product Development
Safeline Kids, Inc.
475 W. 115^th Avenue, Suite 3
Northglenn, CO 80234

Dear Mr. Poulson:




This responds to your letter and follow-up e-mail asking about a design concept for components on a child restraint that attach to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle.The components are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (S5.9) for child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002.The child restraint anchorage system, which you refer to as the LATCH system, is required to be installed in vehicles by Standard No. 225. [1]You ask if the concept you have developed would meet our requirements.With certain caveats, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation.If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product.It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements.NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

You explain that your letter concerns the Sit' n 'Stroll, which converts from a child restraint to a stroller.You have designed LATCH attachments for the restraint system keeping in mind that the Sit' n 'Stroll will be removed from the vehicle several times a day for use as a stroller.You state:

As standard equipment on each product the Sit' n 'Stroll would have permanently attached to the seat shell, a snap hook and also a quick release buckle latch clip.Both are permanently attached to the product on the same piece of webbing [2]

As an option, a consumer could then purchase as an accessory a buckle(s) with a snap hook attached to it, that could be secured to the anchor point in the vehicle seat, allowing the consumer to quickly release the Sit' n 'Stroll from the vehicle seat using the buckle.The buckle will remain secured to the anchor point in the vehicle using the snap hook, but can be easily removed should the consumer decide to transfer the Sit' n 'Stroll and this accessory to a different vehicle. [3]

Discussion

S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems of the type you manufacture to have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a LATCH system.Your child restraint would have snap hooks permanently attached to the child restraint that enable the restraint to fasten to the lower LATCH anchorages.As such, the restraint provides the components required by S5.9(a).The standard does not prohibit a child restraint from having other components attached to it.However, the other components must not make inoperative the LATCH snap hooks that are installed in compliance with Standard No. 213.Further, under S5.6.1, each child restraint system that has components for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system must include a step-by-step procedure for properly attaching to that anchorage system.This means that the installation instructions you provide must include instructions for properly attaching the buckle with snap hook to the LATCH anchorage system.In addition, child restraint systems are tested to Standard No. 213's performance requirements when attached to a LATCH anchorage system "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1."(S6.1.2(1)(i)(C)).Thus, your child restraint must meet the standard's performance requirements when attached by the buckle with snap hook component.

Note also that S5.9(d) specifies an additional requirement for child restraint systems other than systems with hooks for attaching to the lower LATCH anchorages.Such systems must provide an indication when each attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached.Because the "buckle Latch (sic) clip" is a part of your system, the child restraint must meet S5.9(d).We consider an audible "click" of the buckle LATCH clip connecting to the "quick release buckle" as satisfying S5.9(d).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/8/02





---




[1] "LATCH" is a term used 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] The snap hook and buckle latch clip are shown in the attachment as "A."(Footnote added.)

[3]

The buckle(s) with a snap hook are shown in the attachment as "B."(Footnote added.)

ID: nht76-4.48

DATE: 05/18/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether the release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.

Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in a motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism "[that] releases at a single point by a push-button action" (S7.2(c)). "Release" in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 209 specifies that "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly" (S4.1(e)). "Buckle" is defined in S4 as "a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly." Section S4.3 further specifies that "The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied" (S4.3(d) (1)). "Release" in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.

I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry.

SINCERELY,

NSK WARNER KABUSHIKI KAISHA

April 12, 1976

Francis Armstrong Director Office of Standard Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re Interpretation of "buckle" for seat belt

One of our customers has developed a kind of latching device for seat belt buckle. We are obliged if you will read followings and give your opinion to us.

Structure

As illustrated in the attached sheet, the device books like a hook with a stopper and it has an arm fixed stationary to a base, a rotatable c shape catch and a pushbutton.

If a thin and not so soft article such as plastic-covered webbing enters into a slot between the arm and the base, the article pushes the right claw of the catch (Fig. 1) and rotates it. Then, the left claw of the catch shuts the entrance of the slot (Fig. 2).

Pushing the button makes the entrance open by using a mechanical linkage.

Our doubt

We have no doubt of its mechanism but there is a doubt raised after consideration of requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 if this device should be used for the seat belt buckle.

When a passenger pushes the button and opens the entrance of the slot to release himself from a seat belt restraint, the webbing remains in the slot and it does not make him free. The device, therefor, needs one more action; "picking the webbing off the device", to release the passenger completely.

Especially in a case after a turn-over accident, we may be unable to release the passenger because the seat belt is under tension caused by his weight if the webbing has been caught by the hook.

The above is our anxiety about introducing the device to the seat belt buckle.

We would appreciate very much if you could judge and let us know whether the device could be regarded as a buckle.

A. Mita, Chief Engineering Dept.

Fig. 1 Released Position

(Graphic omitted)

ID: 1985-01.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Farmer Tennessee State Department of Education

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

Dear Mr. Farmer:

This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.

To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Under our regulations, a "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons. "School bus" is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.

The first question in your letter asked whether we require Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to all school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of theses safety standards.

The first part to your second question asked, "Does NHTSA consider a 14 crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats an the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?"

The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standard No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.

The second part of this question asked, "Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this standard for Type A vehicles? (Wa are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)"

The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restraining barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.

The third part of this question asked, Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?"

The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements that each school bus must meet; it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.

Your third question asked, "Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)"

Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards set any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 3, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please respond to the following questions at your earliest convenience:

1. Does NHTSA require Type A vehicles in a capacity range of 15-22 passengers to comply with the provisions of FMVSS 222 and 301?

2. If so, does NHTSA consider.

a. A 14" crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222 requirements?

b. Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirements in this standard for this type vehicle? (Note: We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles.)

c. Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?

3. Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12" or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6-8" that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EE:if Enclosure cc: Lt. Leonard Murray

ID: aiam0797

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and 28, 1972, on th subject of the positioning of seat backs for the purposes of testing under Standards No. 208 and 210.; The 'nominal design riding position' specified in Standard 208 an formerly employed in Standard 210 is the position considered by the manufacturer as that most likely to be used by vehicle occupants. In our compliance tests, we ask the manufacturer of each vehicle to be tested to advise us of the correct position.; The term 'most upright position' used in Standard 210 was adopted i part to avoid the need to go to the manufacturers for advice each time we tested a vehicle's seats. Under S4.3.2 of the standard, the seat back is adjusted to the position which places the seating surface most nearly in a vertical position.; There have, however, been difficulties with the use of the 'mos upright position', in cases where that position is not the same as the position used by the manufacturer to establish the seating reference point. Because S4.3.2 also calls for the positioning of the SAE J826 mannikin on the seating reference point, there is a possibility that the mannikin cannot be correctly positioned. This does not appear to be a serious discrepancy, but it is one that should be resolved, and we intend to do so by appropriate amendment in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0796

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of July 25 and 28, 1972, on th subject of the positioning of seat backs for the purposes of testing under Standards No. 208 and 210.; The 'nominal design riding position' specified in Standard 208 an formerly employed in Standard 210 is the position considered by the manufacturer as that most likely to be used by vehicle occupants. In our compliance tests, we ask the manufacturer of each vehicle to be tested to advise us of the correct position.; The term 'most upright position' used in Standard 210 was adopted i part to avoid the need to go to the manufacturers for advice each time we tested a vehicle's seats. Under S4.3.2 of the standard, the seat back is adjusted to the position which places the seating surface most nearly in a vertical position.; There have, however, been difficulties with the use of the 'mos upright position', in cases where that position is not the same as the position used by the manufacturer to establish the seating reference point. Because S4.3.2 also calls for the positioning of the SAE J826 mannikin on the seating reference point, there is a possibility that the mannikin cannot be correctly positioned. This does not appear to be a serious discrepancy, but it is one that should be resolved, and we intend to do so by appropriate amendment in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: a00473beltminder_cmc

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) work towards requiring that ignition interlock belt-minder systems be installed in all new motor vehicles. As discussed below, the agency believes that improving safety belt use rates with vehicle-based incentives can best be accomplished through voluntary installation of such devices.

According to your letter, you are considering a system that would prevent a driver from starting a vehicle unless all occupants were buckled up. Your letter described a system that would employ seat sensors to alert a driver if any vehicle occupant has not fastened his or her safety belt. An interlock system then would prohibit the vehicle from being started until the safety belt is buckled at each occupied seat. You then ask the agency to:

Please introduce a bill, or, have someone on your transportation committee that handles highway safety to introduce a bill, and, pass a law requiring [such safety belt interlock systems] for all new vehicles.

NHTSA considers safety belt use as its top priority in occupant protection. For each percentage point gain in national usage, we estimate that we will prevent about 250 fatalities. In 2003, safety belt use reached its highest level ever, with a national use rate of 79 percent. This was an increase from the 75 percent use rate reported in 2002. To achieve this rate, we relied on an array of programs that we have developed over the past few years, such as the Click It or Ticket program. We continue to support and promote programs to increase the use of safety belts. In March of this year, we announced the availability of $36.4 million in grants for states that develop innovative projects to increase safety belt use.

With respect to vehicle-based safety belt incentives, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction. As part of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress adopted a provision prohibiting NHTSA from requiring, or permitting as a compliance option, either ignition interlocks designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle or buzzers that sounded for a period of more than 8 seconds after the ignition was turned to the "start" or "on" position (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30124).

This provision was the result of opposition from various members of Congress and from members of the public to the belt-induced interlocks and audible alerts that manufacturers were installing in their vehicles to meet the existing compliance options in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Opposition was based on two factors: first, the low rate of belt use among the American public, 10 to 14 percent, meant that large portions of the population were subjected to either a 60 second audible warning or an ignition interlock; second, the available occupant detection technologies were insufficiently developed to determine reliably whether the two front outboard seating positions were occupied and the belt was being used by the occupant of a given seating position.

However, the legislative history indicates no intent on the part of Congress to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily installing either interlocks or other belt system use-enhancement features. With increases to the national belt use rates since 1974, and improvements in occupant recognition technology, we believe voluntarily-installed systems can be very helpful in increasing belt use. The voluntary installation of belt reminder systems is not contrary to existing law, unduly complicated or expensive, or likely to result in a public backlash that would lead Congress to prohibit the use of such systems.

We do not believe the statutory prohibition against NHTSA mandating belt reminder systems should serve as a deterrent to manufacturers voluntarily installing vehicle-based incentives to improve seat belt use. In fact, NHTSAs Administrator,Dr. Jeffrey Runge, has sent letters to vehicle manufacturers encouraging them to enhance their vehicle-based systems. Based on the number responses from the vehicle manufacturers to Dr. Runges initial inquiries, we are gratified to report that many manufacturers appear to be moving in the direction of voluntarily-installed systems. See NHTSA Docket No. 13226 at http:\\dms.dot.gov. Further, we have facilitated the voluntary installation of such systems through a series of legal interpretations that would allow manufacturers to install both enhanced warning systems and vehicle interlocks. See letters to Mr. Robert C. Lange, February 28, 2003; Name withheld, September 13, 2002; and Mr. Bob Snyder, May 25, 2001 (enclosed).

We believe that by encouraging the voluntary installation of belt minder systems consistent with statutory provisions, we can improve safety belt use rates while avoiding the opposition to these systems experienced in the 1970s.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
8/13/04

ID: nht91-1.12

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark G. Southern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Mark G. Southern (OCC 5281)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to the child harness you wish to produce. You indicated in telephone conversations with Ms. Fujita of my staff that you do not object to our making publicly available the cover letter you sent, and the following description of your device.

The child restraint system you plan to manufacture is a harness that consists of upper torso restraints (belts that would pass over each shoulder of the child), and a lower torso restraint (a frontal shield). The system would be installed in a vehicle by use of a strap that wraps around the vehicle's seat back (attached to the strap are the system's shoulder belts). There is a buckle attached to the system's shield that attaches to the vehicle's seat lap belt. The child restraint system has no crotch belt.

Your first question is whether Standard 213 applies to your product, even if your device "is not the primary restraint." The answer is yes. Standard 213 defines "child restraint system" to mean "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." Your harness meets the standard's definition of a child restraint system and it must therefore meet all applicable requirements of the standard.

You ask specifically about the effect of paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard 213. That paragraph states: "Each add-on child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back and no component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back." (Emphasis added.)

(The language emphasized above should read: "seat cushion or vehicle seat back." The word "and" was substituted for "or" through a typographical error that occurred in a January 1988 amendment of Standard 213 (53 FR 1783). The agency's intent was to use the word "or." Your letter has alerted us to the error, and we plan to correct it shortly.)

Since your restraint is designed to attach to a vehicle seat back (by means of the strap which wraps around the vehicle seat back), the restraint would not meet S5.3.1. NHTSA adopted the prohibition against attaching child restraints to vehicle seat backs because the agency was concerned that a vehicle seat back would not be able to withstand the additional load on it from an attached child seat in a crash. It appears

that your harness design would add a load on the vehicle seat back in a crash, and is therefore the type of design that is intended to be prohibited by S5.3.1 of the standard.

We also would like to point out that your design does not appear to comply with paragraph S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard 213. That section provides that each child harness shall "provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt." Your restraint does not include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You would have to modify the design of the harness to include a crotch belt in order for your harness to comply with S5.4.3.4.

There are a number other requirements in Standard 213 that apply to your harness, including the belts, buckles and webbing requirements (S5.4), the labeling requirements (S5.5 and S5.6), and the flammability resistance requirement (S5.7). In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that the harness complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of the standard. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harness you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard 213.

You should also be aware that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of SS151-159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by either you or the agency that your harness did not comply with a requirement of Standard 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all purchasers of the noncomplying or defective product and remedy the noncompliance or defect free of charge.

If you decide to manufacture the harness for sale, you should also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address and a brief description of the child restraints it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days of the date the restraints are first manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. We are returning the sketches you sent to us under separate cover, as you requested.

ID: 21124.drn

John A. Green, Supervisor
California Department of Education
Office of School Transportation
721 Capitol Mall
P. O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 94244-2720






Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system.

You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing.

You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

(1)	Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment, and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
(2)	Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and
(3)	Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1.    Does testing of any product in an independent testing facility (other than [by] a manufacturer) certify that the product meets applicable FMVSS?

The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification.

Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.

2.    Does NHTSA certify independent testing facilities?

The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

3.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. ⁽¹⁾

If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

4.    Does the Safe-T-Bar system make inoperative the school bus's compliance with Standard No. 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.

5.    Does the Safe-T-Bar attachment to a school bus passenger seat back reduce or compromise the effectiveness of compartmentalization?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar:

As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant retraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of "safety bars" in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses.

The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading.

In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.

6.    If a school bus were retrofitted with the Safe-T-Bar system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222
d.9/25/00

---

1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

ID: nht73-6.19

DATE: 05/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By petition for rulemaking dated November 15, 1973, the Ford Motor Company requested an amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with respect to the strength required of the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. After considering the merits of the requested amendment, we have decided to deny your petition.

As stated in your petition, the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 assembly are presently subject to two strength requirements under Standard 210. Section S4.2.2 provides that, when tested in conjunction with the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 3,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly. Section S4.2.1 provides that, when tested separately from the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 5,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly.

It is Ford's position that the 5,000 pound requirement of S4.2.1 was intended to be applicable to anchorages used with Type 2 assemblies having detachable shoulder belts, and that it was not intended for use with integral Type 2 assemblies. Although the NHTSA would agree that the most widely used Type 2 assembly at the time of the standard's adoption had a detachable shoulder belt, the agency does not agree that the 5,000 pound requirement should be limited to anchorages used with such belts.

The 1974 model year will be the first in which integral Type 2 belts are installed in all passenger cars. We anticipate that a measurable percentage of persons riding in cars with the new belts will somehow avoid using the shoulder belt, thereby placing

the lap belt under the same potential stress as any other lap belt when used by itself. In light of this possibility, and in consideration of the fact that keeping the pelvic anchorage force at the currently required level of 5,000 pounds will not impose additional manufacturing costs on manufacturers, we do not consider it advisable to grant the requested amendment at this time.

The petition of Ford Motor Company for an amendment of S4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 and for a complementary amendment to the test procedures of S5.1 of the standard is therefore denied.

November 15, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company, with offices at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121, as a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles, hereby submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (hereinafter "the Standard"). This Petition is filed pursuant to Section 553.31 of the procedural rules of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The purpose of this Petition is to request an amendment to S4.2.1 and S5.1 of the Standard that would eliminate the requirement of applying a 5000-pound force to the anchorages of the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a non-detachable upper torso portion. Sections S4.2.2 and S5.2 of the Standard adequately cover the anchorage loading for such a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This 5000-pound test criteria was developed originally for seat belt restraint systems that were independent of upper torso restraints and is still applicable to such systems as well as those that include a detachable upper torso belt system.

Ford Motor Company plans to incorporate non-detachable upper torso straps as required by S4.1.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 in its 1974 model vehicles. The present requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 cause the restraint system to be dismantled before it can be tested, resulting in redundant and unnecssary tests and, therefore, are not practicable for this type of restraint system.

Ford test and development programs for these vehicles are now at that point where prototype bodies incorporating 1974 restraint system component designs are available for tests according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 demonstration procedures to determine that design levels are appropriate for production tooling. We urge your prompt attention to this matter to assure that our current product programs are not affected.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold

Director, Automotive Safety Office

ID: 1984-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche -- Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking about Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether it is permissible to limit activation of the brake system indicator lamp for purposes of checking the indicator lamp function to six seconds.

The answer to your question is yes. I have enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Fiat, dated February 7, 1975, which discusses this issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock -- NHTSA

ESVG/My-re Weissach, June 19, 1984

Request for Clarification

Ref: FMVSS 571.105, S 5.3

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

The above-mentioned FMVSS also requires the possibility for the driver of a motor vehicle to check the brake system indicator lamp (S.5.3.2) before he or she starts the car.

The two alternatives mentioned are:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either

a) when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or

b) when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Point S 5.3.3 also requests:

Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S 5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position, whether or not the engine is running.

Assuming there is a defect in the brake system, as specified in S 5.3.1 a), b) or c), and the driver turns the ignition switch to the "on" position and the engine is not running, there will be no definite indication before starting the engine that there is a defect, since the indicator lamp is also activated to control the function of the lamp itself.

This means, the indicator lamp can be activated for two reasons, but without making the distinction between the dangerous situation as specified in S 5.3.3 and the more harmless situation specified in S 5.3.2.

We would now like to eliminate this uncertainty by limiting the activation of the lamp (specified in S 5.3.2) to 6 seconds, i.e. if the brake system is working properly the indicator lamp will dim after 6 seconds while it will remain activated if there is a malfunction in the brake system.

This improvement could be achieved by combining the brake system indicator lamps with the time-limit relay of the 'Fasten Seat Belts'-lamp which is activated for 4 - 8 seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or the "start" position (S 7.3 FMVSS 208).

We would now like to know if this method of controlling the function of the brake indicator lamp complies with the requirements in S 5.3.2 of FMVSS 105?

An early favorable answer would be greatly appreciated as we intend to use this method in a 1985-model in connection with the introduction of a modified instrument panel.

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40

7251 Weissach

WEST GERMANY