ID: aiam4546

"Dear Mr. Daugherty: This is a response to your letter of February 5 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). I regret the delay in this response. Specifically, your letter stated that your company manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Your letter stated that your company believes that Standard 213 does not apply to 'durable medical products (wheelchairs, positioning systems)' and asked if this belief is correct. As explained below, your belief is not entirely correct. Section S3 of Standard No. 213 specifies that 'this standard applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.' Section S4 of the standard 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.' No exception is made for restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pounds or less. Further, paragraph S6.1.2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language: 'A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed at the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.' This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Under these criteria, wheelchairs, strollers, and so forth would not be 'child restraint systems' within the meaning of Standard No. 213 because these devices are designed to transport children outside of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Therefore, wheelchairs, strollers, and similar devices are not child restraint systems within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213. Such devices may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, under its authority to regulate medical 'devices.' However, the devices described in your letter as 'positioning systems' are child restraint systems subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Your 'Safety Plus Model 501' includes a 'removable positioning unit' that is designed to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Your '900 Series Transporter' is designed so that the rear wheels can be folded under to allow the device to be used to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, these devices are 'child restraint systems' within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213, and must be certified as complying with the requirements of the standard. NHTSA has said in the past that, since it is possible to offer handicapped children the same level of crash protection afforded to all other children, there is no reason to permit handicapped children to be offered a lesser degree of safety protection in the event of a crash. (See the enclosed October 16, 1986 letter I sent to Mr. Terry Woodman on this subject.) You also asked if there are any standards applicable to 'tie-downs' used on school buses. These 'tie-downs' are straps designed to restrain wheelchairs and their occupants in a motor vehicle in the event of a crash. Since wheelchairs are not subject to Standard No. 213 or any other of this agency's regulations, as explained above, we have no standard applicable to 'tie-downs' or other devices used to position wheelchairs in motor vehicles. I explained this in detail in the enclosed July 31, 1987 letter to Mr. Richard Maher. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Ms. Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5307

"Dear Mr. Haywood: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993 requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows: Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases. You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. If a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all 'occupant seats' in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer. Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-7.33

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This also responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth restraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems could be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.2

DATE: April 6, 1994

FROM: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans, The Sully Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Ruling On 3 Point Shoulder Harnesses In Rear Outboard Seating Positions In The Vans We Convert For Commercial Use.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack to Ivan L. Bost (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

We at Comm-Trans manufacture/convert and sell a line of commercially developed vans for use in the commercial shuttle industry. Our customers represent such markets as hotels, churches, limousine co's, airport ground transportation services, rent-a-car co's and non emergency medical transport co's.

My primary question pertains to whether or not 3 point shoulder harnesses are required in the vehicles that we convert that seat from 10 - 15 people including the driver. Please see the specifications and floor plans I have enclosed. The GVWR of the vehicles in question is in excess of 8500 pounds and less than 10,000 pounds. We as a company have been installing these shoulder harnesses since 1992. The reason for my question is it has recently been brought to our attention at a few of my competitors are not installing shoulder harnesses and are using standard lap belts in the same size and type vans.

I have also talked with Charlie Case in your office and he reinforced what we are doing with the definition of a bus under 571.3 and regulation 208 in section S.4.4.3.2. Please take the time to review this issue and get back with me in writing with a legal interpretation of the standards.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0879

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1972, on the subjec of warning system and interlock system operation under Standard No. 208.; The table enclosed with your letter lists all combinations of fron seat occupancy and front seat belt usage that are possible in a vehicle with two front seating positions. You ask, as to each of these combinations, whether you have correctly understood the operation of the interlock and warning system. We find that a large majority of the combinations shown in your table are correctly interpreted but that a few are in error or are in need of further clarification.; The primary source of error in the table seems to be confusion as t the effect of the driver's absence from his seat. Under S7.4.1, the conditions under which a failure to operate the belt will require the interlock system to prevent engine operation are specified in S7.4.1(a) and (b). Each of these conditions specifies that the driver's position is occupied, so that if the driver is not in his seat neither condition (a) nor condition (b) is met and interlock system operation is not required.; Applying this interpretation to the matrix in your table discloses tha two cases, 18 and 25, are incorrectly interpreted. In each of these cases the driver is not in his seat and the interlock would not be required to operate, even though in both cases the passenger has operated his belt out of sequence and in one case the belt at the vacant driver's position is buckled.; Although interlock operation is not required in cases 18 and 25, manufacturer would be permitted to design his interlock system to operate in these circumstances. Eighteen and 25 should therefore be treated in the same manner as the other cases in the matrix (11-17, 24) in which interlock operation is shown to be within the manufacturer's discretion.; The warning system, which is required to operate when the ignition i in the start position if the operations required by S7.4.1 to start the engine have not been performed, is on a different footing under conditions where the interlock is permitted, but not required, to operate. Under such conditions, S7.3.5.4 does not require the warning to operate in the start position. We would, however, strongly recommend that the warning system be designed to operate whenever the interlock prevents engine operation, regardless of whether or not S7.4.1 requires operation.; One other case in your table should also be corrected. Under Case 4 you indicate that interlock operation would be within the discretion of the manufacturer. It is our opinion that if the driver has properly operated his belt the interlock and warning system should not operate, even though the belt at the empty passenger's seat has been fastened.; Please advise us if you have further questions. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3666

Dear Ms. Anderson: This responds to your November 21, 1982, letter and subsequent Januar 12, 1983, letter submitting supplementary information concerning a play tray that you want to produce. You ask in general whether that tray would be required to comply with any of the requirements applicable to child seating systems in Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. In a conversation that you had with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, you indicated that you no longer need information relating to the first two questions raised in your November letter. Accordingly, we will focus on the other issues that you raised.; The play tray that you describe would be attached to a child seat b the use of velcro fasteners secured around the restraint belts of the child seat. You state that the restraints would have to be in their proper position before the tray, which itself is not designed as a restraint, could be attached. You ask whether a manufacturer of a child seat could sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system or whether it could be marketed separately.; If the play tray were marketed as part of a child seat, it would b required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard applicable to child seats. Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or moveable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the tray attached to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. It does not appear likely that the tray would comply with those requirements.; If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers wh own child restraint systems, it would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. That standard applies to new child seating systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not constitute a child seating system designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.; You should be aware, however, that your tray would be considered moto vehicle equipment. As such it would be subject to our defect authority. If it were found that a substantial number of your trays were being improperly used as the sole restraint device on a child seat by connecting the tray without using the proper seat belt restraint system, the agency might determine that this constitutes a safety-related defect. Also, this could be the source of product liability suits in the event that your tray was involved in an accident where a child is injured while improperly restrained. From our analysis of your diagrams, this type of misuse appears to be likely.; In a final question, you asked whether the regulations ever change. Th answer to that question is yes. The agency frequently amends its own regulations acting upon new information or changed safety needs. Further, the agency receives petitions from members of the public to amend its regulations. The process for submitting those petitions is outlined in Part 552 of our regulations (copy enclosed).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Frederick B. Locker, Esq. -- Locker, Greenberg and Brainin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick B. Locker, Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001

This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral prt of the movable shield and may attached during test configuration II.

Your client, Collier-Keyworth, has designed a child restraint that integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.

I suggest, however, that Collier-Keyworth incorporate into the restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.

In the late 1970's there were several child restraint designs which had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.

When amended Standard No. 215 was being promulgated, the agency decided to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.

Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that section S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.

During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shields to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.

The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loaded and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, as would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a "warning" label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure Via Express Mail

April 12, 1985

Steve Kratzke, Esq. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administation Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Collier-Keyworth Safe & Sound II Car Seat

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

We represent Collier-Keyworth Company with regard to the above referenced product.

As per our previous telephone conversations, we are writing in order to obtain clarification from your office regarding the interpretation of Section S 6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) and its applicability to the above referenced product.

49 CFR 571.213 S6.1.2.3.1(c) specifically provides in appropriate part as follows:

"For a child's restraint's system with fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II do not attach any of the child restraint belts unless there are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." (Emphasis supplied).

We understand that standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problems and misuse of child restraints which primarily involves failure to attach buckles and latches, and that to insure that children placed in child restraints are afforded adequate protection, notwithstanding such use, the aforementioned sections of the standard provide that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are "integral" parts of the shield.

The common English definition of "integral" is "formed as a unit with another part".

We believe that a belt which is attached and not easily removed from the shield is an integral part of the shield since the belt is intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and is not subject to the types of misuse which the standard intended to minimize.

Our client continually strives to design, manufacture and produce child restraint systems which provide the utmost protection for a child placed in them and eliminate foreseeable misuse of the product. To this end the Safe & Sound II has been developed. The Safe & Sound II consists of a tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, one piece molded plastic base capable of adjustment for reclined positioning and a harness/shield restraint. The character of the product can be seen from the enclosed instructions and photographs.

The product can be used as a rear facing system for infants and as an upright forward facing system for children 20-40 lbs. Thus, a single purchase enables a consumer to effectively provide protection for his child from birth through 40 lbs. in weight.

The Safe & Sound II Restraint System integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. The strapping together with a molded plastic unit form a continuous loop when the crotch strap is buckled. This arrangement provides a variety of advantages as follows:

1. The system provides a secure 5 point harness system and guarantees that the occupant will be properly positioned within the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface on the impact shield located at the lower torso area provides for maximum distribution of impact forces over a large an area as possible. This shield is also designed to eliminate the need for separate lap belt assembly and avoid the roping, twisting and cutting into the pelvic areas associated with lap belts. Additionally the shields in connection with the straps form a continuous secure loop.

3. The belt of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system and through the impact shield so that at all points there is assurance that the belts will "lie flat".

4. This child restraint system minimizes the potential for misuse and provides for a simple one-step placement of the child into a secure restraint system. A user need only lift the shield, with its integrated straps, place in the child in the system close the shield and snap the safety buckle to the base of the shield.

For your better understanding and reference, I have enclosed a set of instructions for the Safe & Sound II (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, photographs labeled Figure 1 through 9 have been attached to this letter as Exhibit B. The instructions will provide you with a full understanding of the capability of the product and the photographs indicate that the straps, movable shield, and seat are fully integrated with one another.

The photographs indicate the following:

Figure 1 shows the restraint system from a forward view with a buckle attached.

Figure 2 shows the buckle unattached and the shield moved upwards as would be the case prior to the placement of a child within the system.

Figure 3 shows the manner in which the strap forms an unbroken loop around the buckle and the manner in which the buckle snaps to the recessed based clip.

Figure 4 indicates the manner in which the straps flow continuously through the rear seat support and the movable shield assuring that they "lie flat". Figure 5 shows the buckle portion of the strap as positioned when unattached.

Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the manner in which the buckle secures into the seat base. The belt buckles much like an ordinary seat belt.

Figure 7 indicates that the straps are securely attached to the movable shield. See also Figure 4.

Figure 8 shows a view of the bottom portion of the shield showing that even when the straps are pulled upward they are incapable of separating from the shield since a continuous loop and buckle prevent their detachment.

Figure 9 shows the rear view of the restraint system and indicates the manner in which the straps follow through the rear plastic molded back support and are secured around the tubular steel frame. You should note the very end of the strap has a metal clamped piece placed around it to inhibit removal of the strap through the buckle.

We believe that this product incorporates child restraint belts which are "an integral part" of the fixed seat and the movable shield portion of the unit.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the buckle should be attached under the conditions of test configuration II of the Standard.

We would appreciate your opinion regarding this product.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any item in greater detail, please do not hesitate to call. As previously discussed, I am prepared to visit you in Washington with a sample of the Safe & Sound II if you deem it necessary. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, LOCKER GREENBERG & BRAININ, P.C. BY Frederick B. Locker FBL:dd cc: Mr. James R. Fuller

ID: nht92-8.29

DATE: March 9, 1992

FROM: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Robert S. McLean (A39; Std. 208; Std. 209

TEXT:

I am writing to request a NHTSA interpretation of two basic sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seatbelt Assemblies (49 C.F.R. S 571.208 and S 571.209, respectively). My request for interpretation specifically deals with the application of FMVSS 208 and 209 to an occupant restraint system which has a seat belt portion consisting of a two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and a manual lap belt. This system is of the type used in the 1980-81 Toyota Cressida and also is used on several Nissan and Ford vehicles. Please assume the system is used only on automobiles manufactured before September 1, 1989. For the purposes of this letter, please also assume that this occupant restraint system is certified as complying with the frontal crash Protection requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 using only the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt (without the use of the manual lap belt).

First, we understand that the two-point automatic shoulder belt used in the above-mentioned system is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" as defined in FMVSS 209, S3. This understanding is based first on the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" in FMVSS 209, S3, which states that a "Type 2a shoulder belt" is "an upper torso restraint for use ONLY in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly." (emphasis added). Pursuant to the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt", the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt cannot be a "Type 2a shoulder belt" because (i) the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt" states that the Type 2a shoulder belt is for use "only in conjunction" with the lap belt, while (ii) FMVSS 208, S.4.1.2.1 requires that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt must be used without the manual lap belt in order to comply with that option. Our understanding is based, second, on the fact that FMVSS intended that the Type 2a shoulder belt be used in conjunction with a Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. 32 Fed. Reg. 3390 (1967). See also 49 C.F.R S 571.209, S3. NHTSA has consistently recognized the distinction between a Type 2 seat belt assembly (and therefore the Type 2a shoulder belt and Type 1 seat belt assembly combination which can make up that system) and automatic belts, holding that an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. See NHTSA interpretation letter to David E. Martin from Erika Z. Jones, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated April 14, 1986 (attached as Exhibit "A" for your convenience). Therefore the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above cannot be a Type 2a

shoulder belt because a Type 2a shoulder belt is a component part of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, and an automatic belt is not a Type 2 seat belt assembly. In fact, an automatic belt is not a term defined under FMVSS 209. Third, FMVSS 209, including the definition of "Type 2a shoulder belt," generally does not apply to automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash testing requirement of FMVSS 208, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt mentioned above. See NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (attached as Exhibit "B" for your convenience). In general, a Type 2a shoulder belt is a shoulder belt that is detachable from a lap belt and when detached cannot function as a shoulder restraint, as does the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt. Therefore, please confirm that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt."

Second, we understand that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder-belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt. Our understanding is based upon three basis. First, the warning is not required to accompany the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt because the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt" for the reasons discussed above. Second, the rational behind the FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) warning requirement does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized seat belt. A Type 2a shoulder belt unattached to a lap belt is dysfunctional, so FMVSS 209 required that the user be instructed to hook the shoulder belt to the lap belt. This rationale does not apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, as it is never hooked up to the lap belt, and does not need to be in order to function. Third, the language of FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4, as interpreted by the NHTSA interpretation letter to Frank Pepe from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, dated September 12, 1979 (Exhibit "B"), states that an automatic belt, such as the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt, which is certified as complying with the crash testing requirements of S5.1 (which, as we have stated, the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt does) is not required to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 209. In fact, FMVSS 208, S4.5.3.4 as interpreted by the Pepe letter states that the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to comply with any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1. Therefore, please confirm that (i) the two point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a Type 2a shoulder belt, and (ii) that the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

In summary, we ask that you please confirm that: (i) the two- point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" (ii) the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to be accompanied by the warning which FMVSS 209, S4.1(1) requires accompany a "Type 2a shoulder belt;" and (iii) the two-

point automatic motorized shoulder belt is not required to meet any of the requirements of FMVSS 209, S4.1.

Thank you for your help in construing these regulations as they apply to the two-point automatic motorized shoulder belt and manual lap belt restraint system.

If you need any additional information or clarification, please call at (404) 572-3599.

ID: nht94-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 6, 1994

FROM: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans, The Sully Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Ruling On 3 Point Shoulder Harnesses In Rear Outboard Seating Positions In The Vans We Convert For Commercial Use.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack to Ivan L. Bost (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

We at Comm-Trans manufacture/convert and sell a line of commercially developed vans for use in the commercial shuttle industry. Our customers represent such markets as hotels, churches, limousine co's, airport ground transportation services, rent-a-car co's and non emergency medical transport co's.

My primary question pertains to whether or not 3 point shoulder harnesses are required in the vehicles that we convert that seat from 10 - 15 people including the driver. Please see the specifications and floor plans I have enclosed. The GVWR of the ve hicles in question is in excess of 8500 pounds and less than 10,000 pounds. We as a company have been installing these shoulder harnesses since 1992. The reason for my question is it has recently been brought to our attention at a few of my competitors are not installing shoulder harnesses and are using standard lap belts in the same size and type vans.

I have also talked with Charlie Case in your office and he reinforced what we are doing with the definition of a bus under 571.3 and regulation 208 in section S.4.4.3.2. Please take the time to review this issue and get back with me in writing with a le gal interpretation of the standards.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-4.17

DATE: 12/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Great Dane Trailer's November 4, 1976, question whether the "controlled lockup" exception in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, is available to a manufacturer who equips a "tri-axle" trailer suspension with one set of wheel speed sensors on the center axle (or, alternatively, on the front axle) and one antilock valve and logic module that meters air pressure to the two rearmost axles.

Your question appears to be similar to questions about tandem-axle suspensions that prompted an interpretation of the "controlled lockup" exception to the "no lockup" requirements of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. A copy is enclosed for your information. You will note that the closing statement in the interpretation states that ". . . the controlled lockup exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation." It is left to the manufacturer to decide what placement of the sensors will provide the best performance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

November 4, 1976

Thomas Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 121-Air Brake Systems

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

In Section S5.3.2 of the 121 requirements, there are indications that anti-lock controls be applied to the two rearmost, nonliftable, nonsteerable axles. In the more recent interpretation, there are indications that if it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only; however, they both must be controlled.

My question involves a tri-axle unit. In this case, where must the sensors be used? By the first interpretation, controls need not be on the front axle of this suspension, only on the last two. Of these last two, the center axle will always lock before the rear axle, meaning that the control sensors should be installed on this center axle. However, in a tri-axle suspension, the front axle will lock first, the center axle will lock second and the rear axle will be the last to lock.

We would appreciate your early reply.

Sincerely,

Dudley E. DeWitt Manager/R & D