ID: nht72-4.14

DATE: 09/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1972, regarding the applicability of the requirements of S5 and S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles conforming to S4.3.2 and to buses conforming to S4.4.2 of the standard.

Although sections S6.2 and S6.3 have been amended to refer to belt systems, the reference applies only to vehicles that are required by S4 to meet the injury criteria by use of seat belts. Vehicles manufactured under the options of S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 are not required by the terms of those sections to meet either the occupant crash protection requirements of S5 or the injury criteria of S6. Such vehicles are therefore not affected by the amendments to S6.2 and S6.3, and continue to be exempt from compliance with S5 and S6.

ID: nht72-4.19

DATE: 11/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972, concerning the application of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 to an upper torso anchorage bolt used to attach a seat belt assembly that has a continuous length of webbing for upper torso and pelvic restraint.

Our letter of July 20, 1972, to Standard Triumph, to which you refer, did not rule directly on the question of whether a bolt on the upper torso side of a continuous loop assembly would be considered to "secure the pelvic restraint" within the meaning of S4.3(c). It is our opinion that some part of the pelvic force is transmitted to such a bolt and that it is therefore required to conform to S4.3(c). Because the bolt cannot be used for more than one assembly, the applicable force requirement is 5,000 pounds.

ID: nht72-4.23

DATE: 05/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1972, in which you suggested that S4.3(d)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 is not appropriate for buckles located between the front seats.

Although you are correct in saying that the requirement was originally developed to guard against the buckle's being opened by the pressure of the steering wheel, there is a chance that compressive forces will also affect buckles located between the seats. Even though the tests may be more difficult to administer, these buckles are not exempt under the present version of the standard, and it is not correct to say that the requirement is not applicable to them.

We do not suggest by this that the requirement could not be changed in response to an adequately supported petition. However, the requirement as it now stands applies to all buckles, wherever located.

ID: nht72-4.24

DATE: 07/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Standard-Triumph Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1972, in which you requested formal confirmation of the interpretation of S4.3(c) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 given you informally on June 22.

The requirements of S4.3(c) apply to bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly. They do not apply to bolts used to secure the upper torso restraint. Bolts for the upper torso restraint are therefore regulated with respect to their strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(b).

The reference to "shoulder bolts" in S4.3(c) relates to the design of the bolt and not to the manner of its use. Pelvic restraints are often attached to the vehicle by such bolts, hence the reference to them.

ID: nht72-4.26

DATE: 03/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Wingard Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 10, 1972, regarding interpretation of certain parts of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In regard to your question on performance of retractors, the standard specifies that "an emergency-locking retractor or a non-locking retractor attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." This requirement applies to all emergency-locking retractors whether attached to the pelvic or upper torso restraint and only to those non-locking retractors that are attached to the upper torso restraint.

In regard to the 45,000 additional cycles, one cycle consists of extending the webbing from 50 to 100 percent extension and return to 50 percent.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht73-3.39

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 2, 1973, to Mr. Medlin of my staff, informing us of an infant car hammock made by(Illegible Word) Lamb.

Since the present child restraint standards do not cover infant restraints, we are limited in the action we can take on such a device. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Child Restraint Systems Standard will be issued in the near future. This will inform all such manufacturers and the public of the new requirements for devices used to position or restrain an infant in a motor vehicle. We feel that this is the most appropriate action in this specific situation due to the limited market(Illegible Word) and availability of this device.

We appreciate your forwarding us this information and your continued support of child restraint safety.

ID: nht73-5.31

DATE: 10/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Jordan Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1973 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You understand that "the stop lamps must light when applying the automobile brakes and/or when applying the trailer brakes individually." You tell us of a product that gives a driver "manual control of the trailer brakes [but] does not light the stop lamps in this mode."

Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." This section of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps on new motor vehicles be wired in this manner. The standard does not apply after the vehicle is purchased, and thus does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifying the wiring of his vehicle by adding the Electronic Trailer Brake Control. Such an addition, however, might be precluded under State law.

ID: nht91-1.29

DATE: January 24, 1991

FROM: Nancy J. Hunt -- Paralegal to John T. McDowell, Bankston & McDowell

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Nancy J. Hunt (A37; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am contacting you for the purpose of confirming the official ruling as it relates to FMVSS 301-75 (Rear Impact, Fuel Integrity Test Protocol) with respect to whether the spare tire is required to be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing.

We would appreciate a copy of any and all protocols, requirements, and regulations as well as any recommendations regarding the inclusion and/or exclusion of a spare tire during automobile testing. We would also welcome your comments or opinions regarding this matter.

Should you have any questions concerning our request, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht88-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Oral Interpretation of Standard No. 108: Optical Combination

From Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. 108.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their comb ination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: 003453rbm--June 6

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the use of the Cosco Dream Ride car bed in conducting tests for the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S19 of FMVSS No. 208 requires that a manufacturer certifying compliance with the advanced air bag requirements for infants through automatic suppression certify that the passenger air bag will suppress when tested with any child restraint listed in Subparts A, B and C of Appendix A to the standard. The Cosco car bed is currently the only restraint listed in Subpart A of the appendix. You state in your letter that the car bed does not fit in the front passenger seat of one of your vehicles. You also state that this problem is likely to be encountered with other models of vehicles. Accordingly, you have requested an interpretation stating that compliance with S19 is not required for a child seat that cannot reasonably be installed at any seat track position without contacting the interior of the vehicle. We have determined that manufacturer certification is not required with respect to any child restraint that cannot be placed in the vehicle at any seating position without significant contact with the vehicle interior as described below.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003 (65 FR 30680). Several of the issues raised in your letter were discussed, either directly, or by analogy, in the preamble of that final rule.

In your letter, you explain that the Cosco car bed cannot be installed in a manner that allows for the proper placement of the car bed. In the full forward and full rearward seat track positions, the door of the vehicle cannot be closed. In the mid-track position, the door can be closed, but only by pushing the interior edge of the car bed against the

gear shift, such that you believe a driver would be unable to operate the vehicle. Even at this position, you note that the car bed must be placed at an angle that is inconsistent with the restraint manufacturer's installation instructions. Additionally, because of the placement of the car bed against the gear shift, the occupant classification system detects an empty seat and the telltale indicator does not illuminate. Because the occupant classification system defaults to air bag suppression if the system reads the seat as empty, the air bag would suppress if the car bed were placed in the seat. You go on to state that the Cosco car bed is no longer in production and that no other car beds are currently distributed for sale in the U.S. market. [1]

The test procedures for S19 are contained in S20 of the standard. Under that provision, if a child restraint contacts the vehicle interior, the vehicle seat is moved rearward until there is no contact. At that point, the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance with the standard. There is no corollary language in S22 or S24, which provide the test procedures for the three-year-old and six-year-old compliance options.

The discussion in the preamble related to the "no contact" language of S20.1.2 is limited to contact with a rear facing child restraint and the vehicle dashboard. (See discussion at 65 FR 30711, 30724.) The language was included because we had found in our testing that when some convertible child restraints were tested in their rear facing position with the vehicle seat in a full forward position, the child restraint was either severely tilted or entirely lifted off the seat of some vehicles. We stated that we did not believe parents or caregivers were likely to transport an infant in such a position. Rather, it was our opinion that the vehicle seat would be moved back to accommodate the child restraint. The agency did not anticipate a situation where the width of the child restraint would prevent placement of the restraint without contacting the vehicle interior. Likewise, we did not contemplate a situation where no seat track position could be found that would allow the restraint to be placed in the vehicle without contacting the vehicle interior.

We will not conduct compliance testing for, and manufacturers will not be required to certify compliance with, S19 when the child restraint's width results in so significant a level of contact with the vehicle interior that one would not reasonably expect a parent or caregiver to place the restraint in the front seat. We will consider the following factors in determining whether to do so: first, whether the placement of the restraint in the seat prevents one from closing the door of the vehicle; second, whether the placement of the restraint prevents the driver from operating the vehicle in a reasonable manner, e.g., because of interference between the restraint and either the gear shift or parking brake; and third, whether the restraint is rotated so that it deviates more than 30 degrees from a longitudinal vertical plane. In deciding to drop a proposed test condition in which the restraint was placed on the seat at a 45-degree angle with that plane, we noted that it was unreasonable to assume that parents would actually place a restraint so markedly out of position. (See discussion at 65 FR 30710-11.)

Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that at least two of these factors may be applicable. The inability to close the car door in the full forward and full rearward seat track positions would obviously preclude the use of the car bed in those positions. Likewise, depending on the amount of interference, the gear shift interference could prevent a driver from operating the vehicle with the car bed in the mid-track position. We note that if other seat positions permit reasonable placement of the child restraint, then compliance testing would be performed at these seat positions.

At this time, we are not deciding that limited contact between a child restraint in Appendix A and the vehicle interior, other than contact between a rear facing child restraint and the dashboard or console, would relieve a vehicle manufacturer from its certification responsibilities with respect to the advanced air bag requirements. Parents or caregivers may use a restraint in the front seat even though there is some contact with the vehicle interior. In those instances, it is appropriate to require manufacturers to certify compliance with the standard using that restraint, and we intend to conduct compliance testing even though there may be some degree of contact.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.6/9/03





---

[1] Cosco has informed NHTSA that the Dream Ride car bed has not been discontinued. Rather, it is manufactured only when someone places an order for it.