ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509

ID: nht71-1.28

DATE: 04/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Barbara G. Rothschild

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1971 in which you inquired whether a particular safety belt system, described in a patent application, would qualify as a "passive restraint" within the meaning of the Occupant Crash Protection standard. We have delayed an answer to your inquiry, pending issuance of amendments to that standard that were made on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), in response to petitions for reconsideration.

You describe your system as one in which "you have to manually pivot the belt in order to take your seat in the car". From that point on, however, everything is automatic . . ." The issue, then, is whether such a system is a "means that require[s] no action by vehicle occupants," in the words of the standard.

Our position is that such a system would not meet the above requirement of the standard, since it is a system that does require action by the occupant,i.e., pivoting the belt. By "no action" is meant just that -- no action by occupants other that would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. We recognize that in some cases, the action that is required may be ralatively slight. In terms of regulatory categories, however, we consider it important to distinguish "no-action" systems from "forced-action" systems, of which the most commonly discussed example is the seat belt with an ignition interlock. Your system appears clearly to come within the forced-action category.

Please note that although we are glad to provide interpretations in response to specific questions such as yours, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration generally does not issue overall "approvals" of any vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, with respect to conformity with the standards.

ID: aiam0960

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1972, concerning th definition of 'head impact area' in 49 CFR 571.3(b).; Your question is whether the lower portion of the dashboard depicted i your letter is within the head impact area. Without knowing the interior dimensions of the vehicle, we cannot give you a definite answer. We can, however, describe the circumstances under which the lower part of the dash might be within the head impact area.; Under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the definition, the test device i pivoted forward about specified centers until it contacts the vehicle. These contact points, which together comprise the head impact area, are divided into two groups, those above the lower line of the windshield glass (paragraph (b)), and those below (paragraph (c)). Although the measurement of the head impact area is a continuous process, the separation of the contact points into two groups was accomplished by paragraphs that are not parallel in structure. This has caused some confusion.; The intent of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition might have bee expressed in a single paragraph, reading as follows:; >>>With the pivot point to 'top-of-head' dimension at each valu allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, pivot the measuring device from a vertical position forward and downward through all arcs in vertical planes to 90 degrees each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.<<<; In our opinion it would be appropriate for you to employ this procedur to determine whether any part of the lower dash pad in your drawing falls within the head impact area. The goal of your evaluation would be to determine whether it is possible for the test device to be pivoted downward so that it contacts the lower pad without first contacting the upper pad. If at a particular point the device contacts the upper pad, and if the device is at its minimum length of 29 inches and its pivot point is on the seating reference point, then the area of the lower pad directly beneath that contact point would not be contactable and would not be a part of the head impact area. If, however, there is a point at which the head form in its downward arc would miss the upper pad and contact the lower pad, the lower pad would at that point be within the head impact area. It is quite possible that some points on the lower pad would be within the head impact area, while others would not.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4135

Dear Mr. Tanuma: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986 (ref. W-141-H) concerning the application of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Crash Protection in Interior Impact*, to an inside door 'pull-handle.' You explained that the pull-handle is made of unpadded plastic and does not have a hard inside frame. The drawing provided in your letter shows that the pull-handle is 7.44 inches (186 mm) long, 1.12 inches (28 mm) wide, and projects 1.09 inches (27 mm) from the side of the door. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked if the armrest requirements of S3.5 of the standar would apply to the pull-handle if it is located within the pelvic impact area of either the front or rear passenger door. In determining whether the requirements of S3.5 apply to the structure, the agency has looked at the design and location of the structure, to determine whether it is an armrest (see, for example, the agency's interpretation letter of September 21, 1983, to Mr. Suzuki of your company.). In this case, the pull-handle projects far enough from the side of the door so that it could be used to rest the arm. Further, if the pull-handle were located in the pelvic impact area, it is likely to be used to rest the arm. Thus, we would consider such a pull-handle located in the pelvic impact area to be an armrest which must meet the requirements of S3.5 of the standard.; You also asked if the pull-handle would have to meet the requirement of S3.5 of the standard if it were located outside of the pelvic impact area at the upper portion of the door. In a conversation with Mr. Oesch of my staff, Mr. Hayaski explained that the pull-handle would probably be located near the rearmost edge of the door. In this case, it appears that the pull-handle would be positioned above and to the rear of where occupants would normally be expected to rest their arms. Thus, we would not consider a pull-handle located in the upper portion of the door and near the door's rear edge to be an armrest.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1589

Dear Dr. Miller: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a ne model Bunny Dear (sic) child seat ('Sweetheart Seat II') must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ('for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone') and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ('by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches'). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another.; We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier to b a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position.; We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attemp to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, '[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another,' adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position.; In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the propose certification statement appearing on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: Bruno

Mr. Dick Keller
Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. ("Bruno") is "the manufacturer and distributor of a motor vehicle occupant transfer device called the Turning Automotive Seating (TAS) system." You describe the TAS product as being "used to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired . . . passenger or driver between a motor vehicle and a mobility aid such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair." You state that the TAS is designed to replace seats that are supplied with a vehicle as original (OEM) equipment, and that "[i]t is installed by removing the OEM seat assembly and bolting the TAS into the motor vehicle using the same seat structural mounting as the original." You state that it should take the average mechanic less than two hours to install the TAS and that the only tools required for the installation are those typically found in a motor vehicle maintenance shop.

You state that "when a person decides to purchase a new motor vehicle using the motor vehicle manufacturer's Mobility Program and/or new vehicle finance program . . . the Bruno TAS will likely be installed in a motor vehicle prior to first sale to meet the program requirements and also as a convenience to the purchaser." As you are aware, the certification regulations require a person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle, before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR 567.7. The regulations provide, however, that a person

who alters . . . a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies . . . in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle . . . .

See 49 CFR 567.6.

You have asked what constitutes "a readily attachable component" for the purpose of this provision. You note that in a prior interpretation letter, to Katzkin Leather Interiors, Inc., we stated that because the leather interiors there at issue "require several hours to install by professional installers and require specialized tools for their installation, we would not consider [them] to be readily attachable." From this you have drawn the conclusion that "if persons having average mechanical ability using normally available tools, such as wrenches and screwdrivers, can install the Buno TAS in less that two hours with the Bruno-supplied installation kit and instructions, it could reasonably be considered a readily attachable component," precluding the need for the vehicle to be certified under 49 CFR 567.7 as conforming to all applicable FMVSS affected by the installation of the TAS.

As we have stated in a number of past interpretation letters, a determination of whether a modification involves the addition of "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching the components. In assessing this issue, the agency has identified the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise as factors that must be taken into consideration. The agency has taken the position that absent extraordinary ease of installation, it would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable components." See, e.g., letter to Terry Rowe dated March 7, 1991 and letter to Samuel Albury dated July 12, 1991.

Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the Bruno TAS cannot be installed with sufficient ease for it to be regarded as a "readily attachable component." From the literature that accompanied your letter, we note that the installation of this equipment would require the removal of seating originally supplied with the vehicle and the installation of a seat base that allows the seat to be automatically raised and lowered, and swiveled so that it extends outside the vehicle. We would not regard this task as one that can be performed with "extraordinary ease." Your statement that it would take "less than two hours" to install the Bruno TAS confirms that this cannot be characterized as an extraordinarily easy task. Based on this conclusion, if the Bruno TAS is installed in a vehicle before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, the installer will have to affix a label certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration, as required by 49 CFR 567.7. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to B&D Independence Co. Inc. dated August 21, 2001, which identifies the standards that are impacted by the installation of an adjustable seat pedestal device that appears to serve a similar function as the Bruno TAS, and addresses a number of compliance issues that are raised by the installation of such a device.

If the Bruno TAS is installed after the vehicle's first retail sale, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration. In this circumstance, the installer would not be required to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, but would be prohibited, under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .." On February 27, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule (at 66 FR 12628) that creates an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify a motor vehicle to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in the vehicle. A copy of the final rule is enclosed. In the preamble of the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to define the phrase "first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic)," for the purposes of the rule, "as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered." See final rule at p. 12644. The agency explained that "[t]his definition will reduce the risk of a business being deemed an alterer because it is unable to transfer title at the time the modifications are made." Id. The agency further observed that "[i]f a dealer or manufacturer adds or removes features to or from a vehicle, or otherwise customizes a vehicle after the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic), then the dealer or manufacturer may utilize" the exemption established under the rule. Id. Applying this exemption, if the Bruno TAS were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration that would trigger the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7, and the installer would not be subject to the "making inoperative" prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref:567
d.5/24/02

ID: aiam4680

"Dear Mr. Hiler: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt anchorages for a passenger seat in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such anchorages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: 'Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages.' Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anchorages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. I should also point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. Ihave enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 18764-1.pja

Mr. Paul Irby
President
Innovative Trailers, Inc.
714 Falvey
Texarkana, TX 75501

Dear Mr. Irby:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the chip trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Although your letter was labeled and written as a petition for rulemaking, in a telephone conversation you told Mr. Michael Huntley in our Office of Safety Performance Standards that your intention was to get an interpretation of whether your trailers meet the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. Accordingly, your letter was forwarded to this office for a legal interpretation. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded as special purpose vehicles, so an underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied.

These trailers are essentially van-type trailers that carry wood chips. They are unloaded by driving the tractor and trailer onto a long platform that is then hydraulically tilted at an angle of about 60 degrees so that the wood chips slide out the rear of the trailer. In order to support the great weight of the trailer, its load, and the tractor in the tilted position, all of your trailers have a very rigid rear guard which you state mates with some sort of handling equipment on the platform. The guard's horizontal member is suspended below the rear of the trailer by two pieces of heavy steel plate welded perpendicularly to the back of the trailer. These plates are located a few feet outboard of the trailer centerline and oriented in a vertical plane parallel to the trailer sides. The vertical rear surface of the plates forms the rear extremity of the trailer and project's a few inches rearward of the guard. You explain that most of your trailers are excluded wheels-back vehicles, but that a small number (5%) of your trailers have moveable undercarriages, and therefore cannot qualify as wheels-back vehicles. You state that you do not know how to design a guard that meets the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2 of Standard No. 223, while providing sufficient rigidity to meet the handling requirements of the offloading ramps.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels-back vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

The analysis in your letter is correct regarding the wheels-back status of your trailers. Wheels-back vehicles, excluded by S3 of FMVSS No. 224, are defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." The threshold issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. If the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm of the trailer rear extremity, you are correct in assuming that most of your trailers with fixed rear wheels are excluded. However, your trailers with rear tandems that are not permanently fixed are not excluded as wheels-back.

We turn to the question of whether the wood chip trailers with adjustable undercarriages are excluded as special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ The guard is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard. Therefore, it would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. The guard on your chip trailers does not perform work in this sense. Its function is to connect to the unloading equipment and possibly to support the tilted trailer while unloading. Therefore, the guard is not work-performing equipment, and the bottom dump trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. An underride guard would have to be provided on this vehicle.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer should be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be integrated with or suspended from the plates at the rear. We noticed in your photos that the plates comprise the rear extremity of the trailer (and therefore would comprise the lower extremity when the trailer is tilted). We also noticed that the rear edge of the plates show more wear than the guard. These two observations cause us to wonder whether it is actually the guard, or the plates that the guard is suspended from, that support the trailer when it is tilted. If it is the plates themselves that support the vehicle, you might be able to keep the rigid plates and still have a compliant guard if you mount the guard so that it acts independently from the rigid plates. If necessary, you could mount the guard up to 305 mm forward of the rear edge of the plates. These observations are for your consideration, and are not intended as an endorsement of a particular solution. It is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you have difficulty meeting these requirements, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/17/98
ref:224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: aiam4094

Dear Mr. Martin: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.; You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of th requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of '(s)eat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly' at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.; You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existin language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard No. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.; You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since a owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle 'B' pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency's April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 210's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.; Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additiona anchorages is not minimal. You said that 'the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.'; While we believe that you have raised a number of important issue concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency has consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as 'a strap, webbing, or similar device' used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 209, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides 'pelvic and upper torso restraint.' Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.; The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts an automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used 'in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by' S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by S4 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that 'an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be used...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.'; Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, w believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 17513mer.b-i

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about the test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a child restraint system you plan to sell. You believe that the system is a "built-in" child restraint system under Standard 213 and ask for confirmation that the restraint will not be tested in "misuse" configurations, i.e., installed on the testing apparatus in ways contrary to Mercedes-Benz's instructions for using the restraint. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it.

You describe the restraint as follows:

The system is composed of two parts; an integrated booster cushion and an add-on impact shield. The booster cushion is operated by a push-button. When activated, a portion of the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with the system raises to form the booster cushion. . . .[Daimler-Benz AG's (DBAG's)] integrated child restraint system is a progressive system designed for use with children as they grow older. The impact shield is designed for use in conjunction with the booster seat for children who weigh 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lbs.). The impact shield is secured directly in front of the child by the lap and shoulder belt with the "legs" of the shield stabilized by being placed on both sides of the booster cushion. Without the presence of the booster cushion, the "legs" of the impact shield would collapse making use of the shield alone unrealistic. The design of the impact shield acts to secure the child's torso and to keep the child's legs fixed. Children who weigh 18 to 36 kg. (40 to 80 lbs.) only need the booster seat and standard lap and shoulder belt to be properly secured. Children who weigh more than 36 kg (80 lbs.) may use the conventional lap and shoulder belts.

For convenience, we have depicted these recommended weight ranges and restraint configurations in the following table:

DBAG'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Your specific questions concern how NHTSA would test the restraint. You want us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children under 40 lb., the agency would test the system using both the booster and the shield with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You also ask us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You would like us to concur that "At no time, would testing of the system be required that involved use of the shield without the booster."

We agree with some of your statements but do not agree with others. We agree that the shield would not be tested without the booster. Standard 213 defines a "child restraint system" as "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." An impact shield is designed "to restrain. . . children." The standard also defines an "add-on" child restraint system as "any portable child restraint system." A portable impact shield that is sold to consumers without any other accompanying parts would be an add-on child restraint system and, obviously, would be tested to Standard 213's requirements without any other part. Your shield, however, is merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system. The shield cannot even support itself on its "legs" without the booster cushion. Because of these factors, we do not consider your impact shield to be an add-on child restraint system. The shield itself would not be tested to the requirements of Standard 213 without the booster.

However, there is a question of whether your restraint system (booster cushion with impact shield) is a "built-in child restraint system" under Standard 213 (S4). Configured in the mode used to restrain children under 40 lb., the restraint does not meet the standard's definition of a "built-in child restraint system."

The standard defines "built-in child restraint system" as "a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has used the term "integral" in the context of Standard 213 to mean "formed as a unit with another part." See, e.g., April 29, 1980 letter to Mr. Koziatek (copy enclosed). The add-on impact shield would not be formed as a unit with the motor vehicle. Also, the add-on shield would not be "permanently installed" in the vehicle. Because of these factors, we would not consider the add-on shield to be part of the built-in child restraint system. Accordingly, we would not use the shield when testing the restraint in Standard 213 compliance tests.

This means that the booster would have to meet Standard 213's requirements when configured so as to consist of the cushion alone with the lap and shoulder belts, without the shield, and when tested with each of the appropriate test dummies specified in the standard. The standard specifies that child restraints recommended for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. are tested with a dummy representing a 3-year-old child. Because the add-on shield is not part of the built-in system, it would not be used in the compliance test using the 3-year-old dummy, notwithstanding any instructions you might provide to consumers to use the shield. Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.

Standard 213 does not prohibit you from voluntarily providing add-on pieces to possibly improve the performance of your built-in restraint. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the restraint must provide a minimum level of safety and meet Standard 213's requirements without use of the add-on components, to ensure that the restraint will provide adequate protection in the event the add-on components are not used. Of course, if Mercedes-Benz redesigned this seat to assure that the shield was "integral" and "permanently installed," these considerations would not apply.

With respect to the restraint's configuration for older children, Standard 213 also specifies that a test dummy representing a 6-year-old child is used to test a child restraint that is recommended for children weighing 40 or more lb. Accordingly, we would also use the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests to test the booster cushion and lap and shoulder belts. We agree with you that when the booster is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt, without the shield.

There is another matter we would like to address, concerning your labeling of the restraint for children weighing as little as 20 lb. You should note that S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending booster seats for children less than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb.). This prohibition is based on test data that showed that the 20 lb. dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) was consistently ejected from booster seats in 30 mile per hour dynamic tests. (See final rule adding the prohibition to Standard 213, 59 Fed. Reg. 37167, July 21, 1994.) NHTSA believes children weighing approximately 20 to 30 lb. need a restraining system that provides a higher degree of upper torso and crotch restraint, such as that provided by convertible or toddler restraints, than that provided by a booster seat. Accordingly, the DBAG booster seat must not be recommended for children weighing less than 30 lb.

We would like to take this opportunity to make one last point before closing. In arguing that the DBAG booster seat should be tested only in accordance with your instructions for using the restraint, you state that Standard 213 "was not designed to sanction improper use or misuse of any child restraint system...." Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. It does so by requiring restraints that have features that are likely to be misused to meet performance requirements when installed on the test seat assembly in the "misuse" mode. For example, because NHTSA determined that parents were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints when installing the restraints in their vehicles, Standard 213 was amended to require restraints that have tether straps to meet the standard's requirements with the tether unattached. (See S6.1.2(a)(1), requiring restraints to be secured using only a lap belt and without a tether.) Standard 213 also addresses misuse by standardizing certain aspects of child restraints, such as the manner of installation, to reduce the chance of confusion and incorrect use resulting from such confusion. We believe that the likelihood that parents will misuse a built-in system is reduced when all the components needed to restrain the child are built into the child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.8/4/98