ID: nht93-3.49

DATE: May 17, 1993

FROM: Ron D. Belk -- President, Kustom Fit

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Gonzalez; B. Barras; G. Slee; E. Belk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Ron D. Belk (A41; Std. 209; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter concerning certification of FMVSS 208. Your explanation of "Self-certification" and "Due Care" is helpful in our efforts to comply with all Federal Safety Standards that apply to seating systems, especially in light trucks. However, we still need your further assistance to feel totally comfortable with our "Due Care and self-certification." Our last letter to you asked about a factory "Baseline" sled test as a comparison to our own component test. Your letter has explained NHTSA's position on that. What we don't understand yet is the relationship we have as a seating manufacturer to uncontrollable factors within the "Restraint System" to comply with FMVSS 208. In this instance, our uncontrollable factor is the "Seat Belt Payout" as it relates to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. Our analysis has pointed us in a particular area which is the seat belt pay out dimension from the data we have received. I'll try to explain this. The seat belt pay out is inconsistent comparing all three tests. See our "G" van sled test comparison sheet, attached.

This data was further compared by my Engineering Manager, Mr. Jose Gonzalez and is also attached. Please read this written analysis before you go further. This comparison relates to the impact of "Seat Belt Pay Out" to (HIC) levels and (Chest "G") force. His findings show that the inconsistencies of belt pay out (2.25 inches to 4.9 inches) definitely contributes to the success or failure of these two very important injury criteria. We don't manufacture the seat belts. How do we qualify the test with belt pay out variables such as these? Does FMVSS 209 allow for this 2.65 inch variance? Are we expected to pass these injury criteria even though the belt pays out from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches from test to test? How do I show my customer, the van converter, that I've passed these criteria? If I had unlimited funds I suppose I could keep running sled tests until the belt pays out just the right amount. But that's not what we should have to do. We need a test report that shows we passed these injury criteria. Is our comparison "Baseline to Kustom Fit test" acceptable? Furthermore, we want to know where you stand from a compliance standpoint on this issue "Seat vs. Seatbelt."

For example, If NHTSA crashes a "G" van and the belt pay out is below or above my engineer's allowable length and the (HIC) level and (Chest "G") forces are above NHTSA's standards, is NHTSA going to analyze the data as we have or will they pose the liability on the seating or seat belt manufacturer?

We need your response to this situation as soon as possible.

Attachment

(Kustom Fit test data omitted.)

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) 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 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield 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” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “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.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

ID: nht72-4.25

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, concerning the seat belt retractor test protector test procedures of section S5.2(k) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

In our initial reply of August 21, we stated that the belt was to be retracted completely during the cycling, even though some vehicle installations might prevent complete retraction. After further examining the consequences of this position, we have concluded that it is in error.

The intent of the cycling sequence is to reflect the normal use of the belt over time. If the belt is designed to be installed in a vehicle in such a manner that during normal cycling a part of the webbing cannot be wound onto the retractor, a compliance test should employ the same restrictions of movement. We therefore conclude that you are correct in considering a belt to be fully retracted for purposes of Standard No. 209 when it is retracted as fully as the geometry of its installation permits.

Sincerely,

L R Schneider -- Chief Counsel, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 26, 1972

Dear Sir

F M V S S 209

We are writing as a National Test Laboratory concerned with automotive safety testing and, in particular, seat belt assemblies to your specifications. Some parts of the specification are open to interpretation and we are, of course, concerned that we should operate our test procedure in the accepted manner.

In particular, we would request that you confirm our test methods in connection with Clause S5.2(k) "Performance of retractor". In the case of emergency locking retractors, we proceed as follows:-

1) Corrosion test.

2) Manual withdrawal retraction for 25 cycles.

3) 2500 cycles from full extension to full retraction with an application of 20 lbs force at full extension.

Note (i) As this force is dynamically applied, the mass concerned is less than 20 lbs.

(ii) Full retraction is assumed to mean the full possible retraction of the assembly when installed in a motor vehicle. This will be less than the capability of the retractor, but reflects the practical conditions providing the installation data is obtained from the belt submittor.

4) Temperature resistance test.

5) 2500 additional cycles as (3)

6) Dust test.

7) Manual withdrawal and retraction for 25 cycles.

8) For emergency locking retractors, 45000 cycles operated between the limits of 50% extraction and 100% extraction.

Note (i) The stroke will therefore be half of that applied for the initial 5000 operations and will fully extract the webbing on each occasion.

(ii) Because full extraction occurs, the 20 lbs force will be applied during the 45000 operations as well as the previous 5000 operations.

9) During the initial 5000 operations, 1000 locking operations occur and during the final 45000 operations, 9000 locking operations occur. The locking operations are applied at any point between 50% extraction and 100% extraction.

10) The 20 lbs force is applied on every cycle including the locking cycles.

We should be grateful for your assistance in this matter as a considerable quantity of test work is awaiting clarification of this particular test procedure.

Yours faithfully for Director, RAC DANDY --Senior Engineer Head of Mechanical Section

ID: nht92-9.32

DATE: February 2, 1992

FROM: A. Volmerange

TO: Mr. Harper -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to Anne Volmerange (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

My toyota dealer needs a written authorization from your office to install an old fashion three points belt on my 92 Tercel.

The two points belt which is on the car just don't fit me. I am five feet tall,and the shoulder belt ties either on my neck or on my breast. As these two body parts are too sensitive to take the pull of a restraining belt, I have to drive without it, in spite of the California Law.

Also, the holder of the shoulder belt can't be reached from my driving position since it is way behind the seat. This create a safety hazard since I would not be able to untie it in case of an emergency. One of my previous car burst in flames, and one of my hand opened the door, while the other untied the three points safety belt which I was wearing that day.

As a Registered Nurse, I am aware of the chest, neck and head injuries, and can't figure out why you have stopped using the three points belt. It was fitting all sizes drivers and all seat positions. Car dealers should be allowed to install them as many new cars owners hate the new system and don't use theirs belts.

ID: nht90-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1990

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM LEGAL STAFF

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-27-90 TO GEORGE F. BALL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 201; PART 571.3

TEXT: General Motors Corporation is writing to obtain your interpretation of the scope and coverage of Standard 201 (49 CFR 571.201) as it applies to "interior compartment doors," and your interpretation of the definition of "interior compartment door," which is contained in 49 CFR 571.3.

General Motors plans to offer a convenience feature in one of its car lines planned for Model Year 1991. It is requested that the design details of the feature and the car line for which it is intended be treated by NHTSA as confidential business inform ation, as the information relates to a product plan for a specific model that is not yet publicly available. However, for purposes of this interpretation, the feature can be described generally as a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembl y between the driver and right front passenger. The cupholder assembly includes a pivot, which allows the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly is flush wit h the console assembly.

We are seeking your concurrence with our interpretation that the bottom face of the cupholder is not covered by @ 3.3 of FMVSS 201 because it is not an "interior compartment door" as defined by Part 571.3.

Part 571.3 provides:

Interior compartment door means any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.

When the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which is the only configuration it could be thought of as a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. Thus, applying the language of the definition, the underside of the cupholder cannot be considered an "interior compartment door" because it is not "installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects."

Furthermore, General Motors believes this feature does not pose a hazard to occupants in crashes and is consistent with NHTSA's occupant protection interests. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the potential for injury from the interior surfaces o f the passenger compartment by encouraging the use of energy absorbing materials, rounded edges on exposed surfaces and similar designs. In its January 1988 evaluation of Standard 201, NHTSA describes the standard as:

". . . the synthesis of occupant compartment geometry, energy absorbing materials on the interior surfaces of the compartment and the integrity and controlled crush of the entire vehicle structure. It is all the parts of a vehicle - other than the re straint system - which, if well designed, combine to make the occupant compartment a potentially safe environment even in a severe crash."

(NHTSA Technical Report evaluating Standard 201, January 1988, DOT HS 807 203, page xv)

In the evaluation, NHTSA concluded that Standard 201 has been successful in improving the safety of the instrument panel, particularly for the right front passenger. NHTSA noted that much of the safety improvement is attributable to design changes made voluntarily by the manufacturers in areas not directly regulated by Standard 201, but which incorporate the instrument panel modifications contemplated by the Standard (such as use of energy absorbing materials).

Consistent with this observation, General Motors has incorporated the goals of Standard 201 in the design of the cupholder. For example, it is constructed of energy absorbing material, and with 1/8" radii on the cupholder corners facing the vehicle occu pant so as to prevent contact with sharp edges. General Motors notes that its cupholder, when in view, presents (in theory) no greater hazard than cupholders designed to be permanently fixed in place in a vehicle's console which would be allowed by FMVS S 201. In this connection, General Motors is not aware of any formal concerns expressed by NHTSA about the safety of permanently fixed cupholders. Additionally, inasmuch as the cupholder rotation is controlled by a viscous drive mechanism, it takes app roximately 3.5 seconds to open, which is substantially longer than the fraction of a second duration of an impact. This slow opening rate would negate concerns about the cupholder "flying open and striking an occupant in a crash." (See NHTSA 1/31/86 Let ter to Russ Bomhoff.)

Moreover, a review of the history of the "interior compartment door" provision of Standard 201 has persuaded General Motors that the standard was not intended to cover the bottom face of its cupholder.

When NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) proposed to regulate the performance of glove compartment doors in 1967 (revised later in 1967 to read "interior compartment doors"), the agency received numerous public comments regarding the scope of the Standard. Many auto manufacturers and their trade associations pointed out that there was no definition of "interior compartment door" in the proposal, leading to the possible inclusion of such features as ash tray doors or covers for spare tire co mpartments. The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the predecessor to the MVMA) offered a suggested definition of "interior compartment door" which was intended to "ensure that interior compartment door assemblies not intended to come within the scop e of the Standard were not inadvertently included" in the Standard's coverage. The proposed AMA definition attempted to clarify the Standard's coverage by focusing on whether the "interior compartment door" was intended as a "closure for stowage space i ntended for personal belongings."

Although several commenters (including California Highway Patrol, the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and the State of Illinois) urged that the Standard should cover ash trays and other such compartments, the preamble to the final rule in October 196 8 agreed that interior compartments such as ash trays and spare tire covers were not included in the Standard's coverage. The Agency adopted a variation of the industry association definition, asserting that "it was not intended that ash receivers and s pare tire compartment doors in station wagons be included in the Standard and a definition has been added to clarify the application of the Standard." (33 Fed. Reg. 15794, Oct. 25, 1968). Indeed, NHTSA/NHSB's acknowledgement in the preamble to the final rule that ash trays and spare tire compartment doors were never intended to be covered by the Standard confirms that NHTSA/NHSB was not concerned with every item that may open in the occupant compartment; rather, NHTSA/NHSB was concerned with those door s (primarily, but not limited to, glove box doors) which could themselves induce injury during a crash.

The NHTSA has had few opportunities to interpret the definition of "interior compartment door" or the pertinent provisions of Standard 201; however, those which do exist support our conclusion that the design in question is not covered. One such interpr etation was issued to Russ Bomhoff of Precision Pattern, Inc. on January 31, 1986, and concluded that fold-down tables mounted in seat backs and doors are not "interior compartment doors," presumably because they are not covers for any storage space.

A July 3, 1984 interpretation to Bruce Henderson of Automobile Importers of America concluded that a fuse box cover was also beyond the purview of Standard 201, stating that: "The definition [of interior compartment door] is meant to include such storage areas as

the "glovebox" which has a larger door which could fly open i crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space."

In an August 21, 1985, interpretation to Mazda, the Agency found an interior compartment door in connection with an expandable magazine rack; this interpretation is distinguishable because both Mazda and the Agency concluded that the magazine rack was st orage space for personal effects.

In conclusion, after a review of the Standard, its regulatory history and applicable interpretations, General Motors concludes that the new design does not constitute an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of FMVSS 201 and its associated defin ition. We respectfully request your concurrence with this conclusion by March 1.

ID: aiam4914

"Dear Mr. Baldwin: This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter i which you asked 'the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed.' Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. Beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers were required to begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their passenger cars. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 required manufacturers to certify that at least ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, complied with S4.1.2.1. S4.1.3.2 required 25 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988, to comply with S4.1.2.1, and S4.1.3.3 required 40 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989, to comply with S4.1.2.1. However, the agency temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. This exclusion meant that convertibles did not have to be counted in the total passenger car production to determine the percentage of total passenger car production equipped with automatic restraints. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles manufactured prior to September 1, 1989, were allowed to have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt at each seating position. All passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must be certified as complying with S4.1.2.1. There are also currently requirements for lap/shoulder belts in some rear seating positions in convertibles. Again, however, these requirements would not have applied to the 1984 convertible involved in your litigation. For your information, S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 includes additional requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars. All passenger cars, except convertibles, manufactured on or after December 11, 1989, were required to have lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions. All convertibles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have lap/shoulder belts at these positions. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht72-3.40

DATE: 08/04/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of July 11, 1972, raises two substantive questions concerning the belt system requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

The first question concerns S7.4.1, which provides that the engine starting system shall not be operable "unless the belt system at each occupied front position is operated after the occupant is seated". You ask whether a system that you submitted for our inspection, which does not use electronic logic circuits, would conform to this requirement.

The belt system in question is designed to make it quite difficult to enter the vehicle if the belt system is fastened. The occupant is thus forced to unfasten the belt (if it has been left fastened) to enter the vehicle, then to fasten it in order to start the engine. The system employs an inboard-mounted shoulder belt with the outboard attachment point for the lap and shoulder belts mounted in the door. The ignition system employs a buckle switch, so that the belt must be buckled for the engine to start. Upon entering the vehicle, an occupant may find that the belt is either buckled or unbuckled, depending on the action of the previous occupant, but if it is buckled, he will find entry difficult if he does not first unbuckle it. After evaluating the system, we have concluded that the occupant is essentially compelled to operate the belt system after being seated in order to start the car. The system therefore conforms to the requirements of S7.4.1.

In view of the lack of logic circuits, we urge that the design of the buckle be given careful attention, to prevent defeat of the system by the insertion of objects into the buckle.

Your second question concerns the acceptability of belts which require "some action during normal vehicle entry or egress" under the requirements for passive belts. As presently drafted, S4.5.3 does not permit such belts to be classified as passive belts. We will treat your request for amendment of this requirement as a petition for rulemaking and give it prompt consideration.

ID: aiam5233

"Dear Ms. McDaniel: This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter t Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows: ...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present. You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated. 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. 1381 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. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle. Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, 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. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle. Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles. Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative. 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 cc: Federal Highway Administration";

ID: nht90-4.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-90 to NHTSA from Mary Rees (OCC 5362; FMVSS 207)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. In your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification.

(1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic S afety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however , that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 56 7.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, comput er simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of "due care" could be the u se of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utiliz ed.

Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a

manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards.

(2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies wit h federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible f or certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alte rer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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

Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with standard No. 207 or any other standard.

In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the nec essary certification.

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

ID: nht76-2.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 2, 1976, in which you ask whether the definition of "Contactable surface" in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, includes areas on the front of the seatback located more than three inches from the top of the seat.

Your interpretation of "contactable surface" is correct. The standard states in paragraph S4 that only the uppermost three inches of area on the front of the seatback is considered part of the "contactable surface." The remainder of the front of the seatback is not considered part of the "contactable surface" and need not meet the head impact requirements of S5.3.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 2, 1976

Tim Hoyt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Enclosed are two (2) prints that show our interpretation of the MVSS #222 seat impact regions. In a previous letter, we were informed that the head impact region (marked "H") extends downward to the "12 inch level" above the S R P on the aisle of the seat. The front of the seat was not mentioned.

Our interpretation of S 4. definitions.

"Contactable Surface" is that we do not need to meet the head impace requirements on the front of the seatback below the "H" region. This region is shaded and dimensioned 3" on the print. Is this interpretation correct?

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain,

L. T. Mitchell, Jr. Engineering Department

H - HEAD IMPACT REGION

K - KNEE IMPACT REGION

(Graphics omitted)

H - HEAD IMPACT REGION

K - KNEE IMPACT REGION (Graphics omitted)