ID: nht92-5.16

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/8/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7405)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1992 concerning how the "R-Bar" should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that, under the test condition set forth in S6.4 of the standard, you believe that the test should be performed with the R-Bar in its most upright position. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

Section S6 of Standard No. 222 sets forth a number of test conditions which apply to the requirements specified in section S5 of the standard. One of these requirements, set forth in section S6.4, reads as follows: "If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its most upright position." This test condition addresses seat backs which may be adjusted to different angles for the comfort of the seat occupant. Your letter raises the issue of whether this condition also addresses the position of a restraining bar which is attached to the seat back.

It is our opinion that S6.4 only addresses the position (degree of uprightness) of a seat back as a whole, and not the position of individual components that can separately be placed in different positions without affecting the degree of uprightness of the seat back. In the case of the R-Bar, the position of the R-Bar (up or down) has no effect on the degree of uprightness of the seat back. Therefore, Standard No. 222 does not expressly address the position of a device such as the R-Bar.

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of Standard No. 222, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the test procedures is only to be performed with a device such as the R-Bar in only one particular position. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the possibility of death or injury to school bus occupants during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. To serve this purpose, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the R-Bar in any position in which it may be placed, since the R-Bar could be at any such position when the seat is occupied.

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: nht95-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary M. Mann -- Director, Federal Government Regulations, National Marine Manufacturers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/15/94 letter from Mary M. Mann to Patrick Boyd (OCC 10484)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion whic h follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closet edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. Y ou asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspi cuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acc eptable:

a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without un derride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which wil l have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirem ent. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be loca ted at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) pr ohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting mu st be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the e dge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate comme rce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely

ID: nht87-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Fahl

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas R. Fahl, Esq. Brendel, Flanagan, Sendik & Fahl, S.C. 6324 West North Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53213-2099

Dear Mr. Fahl:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Richard Strombotne, the chief of our Crashworthiness Division. In your letter, you posed three questions about child restraint systems. I will answer those questions in the order you presented them.

1. Does NHTSA have information as to where a family with two children 3 years of age or under should put the second of two child restraint systems, assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear seat?

NHTSA has not specifically addressed this topic in any of our regulations or recommendations. We believe, however, that in this situation both child restraint systems should be placed in the rear seat. This belief is based on the generally greater distan ce from the rear seat to the interior surface in front of that seat and the fact that the interior surface in front of the rear seat is primarily the rear of the front seats. The rear of the front seats tends to be a less hostile surface than the dashboa rd. Additionally, crash data show that all vehicle occupants (both adults and children) suffer fewer injuries and fatalities in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions.

2. Has NHTSA developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint, assuming that two children under 3 years of age will be occupying a motor veh icle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

No, NHTSA has not imposed any such requirements. With respect to child restraints manufactured before August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213) specified that: "The instructions shall state that the re ar center seating position is the safest seating position in most vehicles for installing a child restraint system." For child restraints manufactured on or after August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 requires: "The instructions shall state that, for maximum s afety protection, child restraint systems should be installed in a rear seating position in vehicles with two rear seating positions and in the center rear seating position in vehicles with such a seating position."

NHTSA has somewhat modified its position about the rear center seating position being the safest place to install a child restraint system in a recent rulemaking action amending Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Please no te that this standard applies only to vehicle manufacturers, and not to child restraint manufacturers. However, in an August 19, 1986 rule (51 FR 29552; copy enclosed), section S6(b) of Standard No. 210 requires the owners manual for vehicles manufacture d after September 1, 1987 to state that "according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions." We are currently considering whether Standard No. 213 should be ame nded to include similar language. However, neither of these requirements specifically addresses the situation where two child restraints are to be installed in the same vehicle.

3. Has NHTSA done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and, if so, what are the results of those studies?

No study of which we are aware, whether done by this agency or any other party, suggests that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system. In fact, those studies of which we are aware indicate that a properly i nstalled child restraint system in the right front passenger seat will afford the child occupant a high level of safety protection in a crash situation. The safety protection can be maximized by properly installing the child restraint in a rear seating p osition, but we are aware of no basis for stating that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

September 17, 1986

Mr. Richard L. Strombotne Chief, Crashworthiness Division U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Strombotne:

In conjunction with a matter upon which I am presently working in this office I am in need of information relative to child restraint systems and pose the following inquiries to you

1. Does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have information as to where a family with 2 children 3 years of age or under should put the second of 2 child restraint systems assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear s eat?

2. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration developed any rules or regulations suggesting or requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint system assuming that 2 children u nder 3 years of age will be occupying a motor vehicle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?

3. Has the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration done studies to determine that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and if so what are the results of those studies?

In the event the Administration has developed background information pertaining to any one of the three areas about which I am making an inquiry I would appreciate your directing me to that information or sending copies to me.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Fahl

TRF:mhs

ID: nht88-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 11, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES - REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO; (OCC-3422). TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. This section requires the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint to be located within the acceptable r ange shown in Figure 1 of FMVSS 210.

Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly that has its upper torso anchorage point located in the acceptable range as defined in Figure1. The function of the seat belt and all strength requirements specified in FMVSS 210 are met using thi s anchorage point.

Volvo believes that an extra set of hardware at the upper torso anchorage would increase the stability of the mounting. The location of this extra set of hardware would fall outside the acceptable range as specified in Figure 1.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210, with respect to the extra set of hardware for the upper torso anchorage, would be that it is acceptable for it to fall outside the range as specified in Figure 1, because the extra set of hardwar e is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements as specified in FMVSS 210. Please confirm this for us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

ID: 12548a.mls

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter asking whether "belt positioning seats" as defined in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems may be either the booster seat cushion (base) by itself or the base with a fixed or removable back. After asking a number of questions about belt positioning seats, you ask what requirements would be applicable to a removable slip cover for a belt positioning seat. The responses set forth below are based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter and related attachments.

You state that Volvo currently markets a two piece, cushion (base) and backrest belt positioning booster seat for children over 50 pounds. You further state that this restraint positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of the vehicle's Type 2 belt system. The restraint lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, to restrain the forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. According to your letter, Volvo is contemplating marketing this device in the United States as a belt positioning booster for children 33 pounds and higher. You further state that Volvo markets a backrest which, without tools, may be easily attached and removed from the booster cushion. You state that as a child grows, first the backrest and then the base will no longer be needed.

You ask nine questions about Standard No. 213. You also request that we confirm what you refer to as three "interpretations" of the Standard. Your questions and "interpretations" are restated below, followed by our answers.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO BELT POSITIONING SEATS

You initially ask whether your device meets the definition of a belt positioning booster seat, if it is sold for use by children 33 pounds and higher.

Yes. "Belt positioning seat" is defined in a July 21, 1994 final rule as

A child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. (59 FR 37167)

The system you describe is consistent with the definition of "belt positioning seat." Moreover, the agency adopted labeling requirements that state that "booster seats shall not be recommended for children of masses of less than 13.6 kg" (30 pounds). Accordingly, it would be permissible for you to market your belt positioning booster seat for use by children weighing 33 pounds or more.

Question 1. Must a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component to restrain forward movement have a backrest?

No. A belt positioning seat may be either the base by itself or the base with a backrest. In either case, the belt positioning seat must comply with all the performance requirements when tested.

Question 2. If a belt positioning booster must have a backrest may the back be detachable from the base cushion?

As stated in our answer to question 1, a belt positioning booster seat is not required to have a backrest.

Question 3. If the belt positioning booster has a detachable backrest, can it be sold separately from the base cushion?

Nothing in NHTSA's regulations would prohibit a manufacturer from selling a detachable backrest separately from the base cushion.

Question 4. If the belt positioning booster has a fixed or detachable backrest, does it need to meet any requirements such as surface area or side support?

Yes. A belt positioning booster seat with a fixed or detachable backrest is required to meet all requirements that would be applicable to a belt positioning seat with a back, including the surface area and side support requirements set forth in S5.2.2.

Question 5. Is the backrest considered a child restraint under the definition in this regulation?

A detachable backrest, by itself, would not be considered a child restraint under the definitions in Standard No. 213. Nevertheless, a detachable backrest used in combination with a base cushion would be a child restraint system. A "child restraint system" is defined 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." As stated above, a "belt-positioning seat" is defined as "a child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat..."

Question 6: Must the detachable backrest be labeled in the same way as the cushion base?

No. A detachable backrest would not be required to be labeled in the same way as the cushion base, provided that the cushion base is labeled with all the information required by Standard No. 213.

Question 7: If a belt positioning booster seat with a detachable backrest is tested by NHTSA for compliance to FMVSS 213, will NHTSA test with or without the backrest attached?

If the seat is recommended for use both with and without the backrest, then NHTSA would test the belt positioning seat in both use modes: as a cushion alone and with the backrest attached. The agency believes that it is necessary to test the seat both ways in order to replicate fully the actual anticipated use of the child restraint system.

You conclude this section by stating that:

It is our interpretation that the booster seat cushion (base), by itself, constitutes a belt positioning booster seat that may be labeled as being suitable for children weighing not less than 30 pounds. Further, we believe that a belt positioning booster seat that lacks any component, such as a belt or a structural element like a shield, may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

We agree with both of your statements: A seat cushion (base) by itself may be a belt positioning booster seat, and a belt positioning booster seat may have a back that is either fixed or removable.

QUESTIONS RELATED TO SLIP COVERS

You state that Volvo is considering marketing a removable slip cover for the belt positioning booster seat that would either be one piece that covers both the base and the attached back or two pieces that would separately cover each piece. You anticipate selling the slip cover either with the booster seat or as an accessory separately. You state that the slip cover may cover labels on the booster seat required by Standard No. 213.

8. Volvo would like to know if a slip cover as described above would be permitted to be sold with the booster or separately as an accessory?

A slip cover would be permitted to be sold either with the booster or separately as an accessory.

The applicable requirements differ depending on whether a slip cover is sold with the booster seat or as an accessory. A slip cover sold with the booster seat would be considered part of the child restraint system, and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 213, including the labeling requirements in S5.5 and the flammability resistance requirements in S5.7. A slip cover sold separately as an accessory would not be subject to these requirements. While it is unlikely that the slip cover would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in 30122 can install a slip cover if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including FMVSS 213's labeling requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraint systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraint systems.

In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

9. Must the required warning labels or other information, such as the date and location of manufacture on the booster seat, be visible with the slip cover installed?

Under S5.5.3, information specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) must be visible with the slip cover installed. The agency notes that it is important for this information to remain visible, given that child restraint systems may be used by people other than the initial purchaser such as grandparents and child care providers who would not know about a warning label that was covered by a slip cover. Nevertheless, information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (f) (such as the date and location of manufacture) need not be visible when a system is installed, and thus may be obscured by a slip cover.

With respect to a slip cover sold as an accessory, the agency cannot require labeling information to be visible when the slip cover is installed. Nevertheless, NHTSA strongly urges you to either label the slip cover with this important safety information or not obstruct this information already labeled on the child restraint system.

You conclude your letter by asking us to confirm the following statement:

It is our interpretation that FMVSS 213 does not apply to either the backrest or the slip cover. As we understand, the standard applies to new child restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Both the backrest and the slip cover, by themselves, were not designed to restrain, seat, or position the child and thus would not be subject to the standard. Since the backrest would not be considered a child restraint system, it would not have to be labeled nor would it have to meet the surface area or side support requirements of the standard. Also, since the slip cover is installed over the child restraint by the consumer after the initial sale we believe that labeling the child restraint appropriately is sufficient to meet the requirements of the standard and that it is not required to label the slip cover in any way.

As explained above, we cannot fully agree with your interpretation. If it is sold with a child restraint system, a slip cover would have to comply with the flammability resistance requirements. In addition, the slip cover must either be labeled or not obstruct the safety information on the child restraint system.

While a backrest sold alone would not be a child restraint system, a backrest in connection with a bottom cushion would be a child restraint system and therefore would be subject to all applicable requirements in Standard No. 213.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d.12/5/96

ID: aiam4190

Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your May 21, 1986 letter requesting an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, as it applies to safety belts on large school buses. You asked first whether it is acceptable to install two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. Your second question asked whether such a seat would be designated as a two- or three- passenger seat.; In response to your first question, Standard No. 222 currently does no prohibit you from providing two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. This is because NHTSA does not require or set specifications for safety belts installed for passengers on large school buses, but for the requirement that the installation method not interfere with vehicles' compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency is currently considering an amendment to Standard No. 222 which would affect the voluntary installation of safety belts on 39-inch bench seats. If we adopt changes to the standard proposed in a notice published on October 10, 1985, safety belts voluntarily installed on large school buses must meet requirements similar to those established for safety belts on small school buses. Under the proposed requirements, manufacturers voluntarily installing safety belts would have to install three safety belts on a 39-inch seat. We are currently evaluating comments received on the proposal, and final action is anticipated in the near future.; In response to your second question, since your current option t install voluntarily two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat does not affect your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to manufacture school buses which comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, the 39-inch bench seat to which you refer must be designated as a 3-passenger seat under S4.1 of the standard. You as a manufacturer must ensure that the seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on calculations of *three* seating positions and the requisite force applications. While your bench seat might be occupied by fewer persons due to the safety belts, that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number.; We note further that since under S4.1 a 39-inch bench seat i considered to have three designated seating positions, manufactures must not provide more than three safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat or otherwise imply that the seat is capable of carrying more than three passengers.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3279

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufactures. You ask whether the seats would qualify as 'designated seating positions', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, *except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats* . . . . (emphasis added).; <<

ID: aiam3280

Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufactures. You ask whether the seats would qualify as 'designated seating positions', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, *except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats* . . . . (emphasis added).; <<

ID: nht80-2.3

DATE: 04/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Home Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 15 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Don Gerkin Product Engineer Cosco Home Products 2525 State Street Columbus, Indiana 47201

Dear Mr. Gerkin:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 1980, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

You asked whether a crotch strap that is "permanently attached to a movable shield can be attached during the 20 mph test required for child restraint systems that have fixed or movable shields. Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that, in the 20 mph tests, the child restraint belts are not to be attached unless "they are an integral part of the fixed or movable shield." The agency used the word "integral" in its ordinary sense to mean something that is "formed as a unit with another part." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977). A crotch strap that is permanently affixed to the shield is formed as a unit with the shield, and therefore, can remain attached during the test.

You also asked, whether, if the movable shield "were designed in such a way that moving it into position for use it automatically locked in that position, and a child was unable to unlock it", would the 20 mph test be conducted with the shield locked into place? Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that each movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Therefore, as long as your instructions explain how to lock the movable shield, it can be locked into place prior to the testing.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Vladislav Radovich Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

January 23, 1980

RE: (49CFR Part 571) (Docket No. 74-9; Notice 6)

Dear Mr. Radovich:

After reviewing our arm rest model and shield model Child Restraints, it is obvious we can salvage nothing. We must start over with some new concepts.

As there is no time for us to waste, we need the Agency's official answer on some points in order to continue.

1. If a barrier were designed in such a way that the top end of the crotch strap was permanently attached to it. The other end of the strap was removable from its anchorage point below the plastic shell attached to a frame only by removing some hardware that is never intended to be removed as long as the barrier is attached to the child restraint.

Can the 20 MPH test for compliance be conducted with the barrier and crotch strap hooked up as described above?

2. If a barrier were designed in such a way that moving it into position for use it automatically locked in that position, and a child was unable to unlock it. Would the 20 MPH test for compliance be conducted with it locked as described above?

We would appreciate your attention to these points at the earliest moment.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken Product Engineer

rm

ID: nht81-3.37

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to a continuous-loop, Type 2 seat belt assembly. You ask whether each structural component of such a seat belt assembly should be considered "common" hardware for both the pelvic and upper torso portions of the assembly.

Paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Standard No. 209 specifies that the structural components in a Type 2 seat belt assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3,000 pounds. Arguably, in a continuous-loop system with a sliding buckle latchplate, every component of the assembly could be considered "common" hardware since, as your letter points out, if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly could be rendered useless. However, the agency has stated in the past that testing for compliance with paragraph S4.4 of the standard on continuous-loop, Type 2 assemblies will be conducted by using a webbing clamp to segregate the portion of the assembly not being tested, i.e., to separate the pelvic and upper torso portions. This means that in continuous-loop systems the pelvic portion and the upper torso portion are not to be tested simultaneously. Although a test apparatus can be designed to simultaneously load a Type 2 continuous-loop assembly without the use of webbing clamps, the agency determined that such a test method is extremely difficult to perform. I am enclosing copies of two earlier letters of interpretation on this subject.

In light of this prior interpretation, the agency cannot conclude that all components of a continuous-loop system are "common" hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). Rather, it is our opinion that only the latchplate, buckle and the inboard seat belt anchorage are common hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). The belt retractor and the "D" ring should be considered only part of the upper torso portion of the continuous-loop system.

I would point out that it is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine and certify compliance with all applicable safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The agency does not provide prior approval of any safety design or test method. Therefore, you are free to test seat belt assemblies by any method you believe to be sufficient to establish due care that the assemblies are in compliance with Safety Standard No. 209. In our opinion, however, the test method mentioned in your letter would maintain a somewhat higher standard of performance than that currently required by the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1981

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

I am requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The referenced paragraph pertains to the structural loading of the "common" hardware within a type 2 seat belt assembly.

We have always tested the buckle tongue and buckle assemblies as common hardware. My concern is, with a type 2, one retractor assembly which has a free sliding buckle tongue. I feel that each structural component within the assembly (e.g., the retractor, the sling or "D" ring) could be considered common to both the pelvic and torso portions, due to the fact if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly would be rendered useless.

One possible argument to my feelings would be, that during the actual dynamic crash environment as opposed to the static loading environment of the standard, there may not be sufficient time for all of the loads to be evenly distributed.

The reason for my request, is that Dayton T. Brown, Inc. conducts certification testing for various seat belt manufacturers. We do not want to overburden them by insisting that all of their components meet the common hardware requirements, nor do we want to jeopardize the integrity of the system by not fully testing it.

Very truly yours, DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.;

D. R. Wachsmuth -- Senior Test Engineer

cc: D. Delve NEF32 -- NHTSA