Erika Z. Jones

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your November 29, 2012 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on behalf of Graco Childrens Products, Inc. (Graco), asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. On

January 8, 2013, you and Graco representatives met with NHTSA staff to elaborate on the information provided in your letter.

Your questions relate to a Graco belt-positioning booster seat that has armrests that are height-adjustable so that a caregiver can lower or raise the armrests to a height comfortable for the child. You note Graco has observed that, in some tests, an armrest separated from the booster seat. In other tests, the armrest did not separate, but moved from a lower adjustment position to a higher adjustment position, remaining level.[1] You state that the injury assessment reference values measured by the test dummy used in the tests were all within the limits of FMVSS

No. 213.

You ask about S5.1.1(a) and (b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213, which state:

S5.1.1  Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2). [Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) are not relevant to Gracos question so we do not restate them here.]

*  *  *  *  *

Discussion

The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter and in the meeting, and is limited to the particular aspects of the Graco booster seat you presented.

Question 1. Your first question asks: does S5.1.1(a) prohibit the armrest separating from the booster seat?

Our answer is no, we do not consider the armrest separation to be prohibited by S5.1.1(a). This is because the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a) applies to load bearing structural element(s), and it does not appear that the armrests qualify as such.

Your letter states that the armrests are provided for the childs comfort and to provide a visual guide for the pre-crash positioning of the vehicles Type II belt system. (The owners manual Graco provided (on pages 29 and 35) states: The lap belt portion MUST pass under the armrests and be positioned low on the hips (Emphasis in text.) We assume this is what was meant by your statement that the armrests provide a visual guide.) Graco also indicated in the meeting that the armrests do not contribute to the crashworthiness of the seat.

We have determined that the armrests are not load-bearing structural elements. We interpret the term load-bearing structural element as referring to parts of the child restraint system (CRS) that are needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint and to meet FMVSS No. 213. You indicate that the armrest is provided for comfort and moved due to the Type II belt buckle pushing against it. It does not appear to us that the armrest is needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint or that it contributed to the child restraints meeting the standard. Thus, we conclude that the armrest is not a load-bearing structural element subject to the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a).

Question 2. Your next question asks whether an armrest is required by S5.1.1(b)(1) to remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing.

Our answer has two parts.

First, S5.1.1(b)(1) generally applies to adjustable armrests. The requirement is intended to prevent a childs fingers or limbs from being caught between shifting parts of the child restraint, and to prevent a child from sliding too far forward and downward (submarining) during a crash. A change in adjustment position of an armrest could pose an unreasonable injury risk by collapsing on a childs limb or fingers or by movement that results in a scissoring action, the closure of apertures in which a finger can be caught, etc.

However, we have in the past interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to certain mechanisms. In one letter, we interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to an adjustable shoulder belt clip that moved from an initial adjustment position in FMVSS No. 213s

dynamic test.[2] In another letter, we did not apply S5.1.1(b)(1) to a headrests moving

upward.[3] With those mechanisms, the change in adjustment position would not increase the risk of finger or limb entrapment or increase the risk of submarining.

Thus, our second part to the answer is that we interpret S5.1.1(b)(1) as not prohibiting the armrests change in adjustment position from a lower height to a higher height. That change of position of the armrest would not result in an increased risk of finger or limb entrapment, unlike the case of an armrest that shifted to a lower adjustment position from a higher one. Also, the armrests change of adjustment position would not increase the risk of submarining. We assume in this answer that there is not associated with the change in armrest position any kind of scissoring mechanism between shifting parts to which the child would be exposed, no apertures that become smaller, no increased concentration of forces on the child, etc.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/28/14

Ref: Standard No. 213

Mr. Larry Fowler

Director of School Bus Sales

Matheny Motors

P.O. Box 1304

Parkersburg, WV  26102

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your letter asking about the Do Not Block label requirement in S5.5.3(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.  You ask if it is a violation of a Do Not Block policy to have integrated child seats or child restraint harnesses without tethers adjacent to school bus emergency exits.[1]

In short, the answer to your question is no, provided all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 are met.  Additional considerations relevant to this response and clarification of previous NHTSA statements are discussed below.

Section S5.5.3(d) of 49 CFR 571.217 applies to new school buses with one or more wheel chair anchorage positions.  S5.5.3(d) requires school bus manufacturers to place a label with the words DO NOT BLOCK directly above or beneath each Emergency Door or Emergency Exit label on the school buses.  NHTSA stated that the agencys primary reason for the requirement was to inform school bus users and aftermarket wheelchair retrofitters that emergency exits should not be blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as book bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.[2]  

The labeling requirement of S5.5.3(c) does not establish a prohibition on manufacturers barring them from installing an integrated child seat in the exit row.  If a manufacturer installed an integrated child seat in the exit row, there would not be a per se violation of FMVSS No. 217.  We assume in this answer, of course, that the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 were met.  For instance, S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 217 has requirements that ensure school bus emergency exit openings are of sufficient size for emergency egress.  The exit with the integrated child seat adjacent to it must meet those requirements when tested by NHTSA in accordance with the standards test procedures. 

As to whether a manufacturers installing an integrated child seat in the emergency exit row would be contrary to a NHTSA Do Not Block policy, we assume you are referring to statements in NHTSAs guidelines on transporting pre-school age children on school buses.[3]  NHTSA issued the guidelines in 1999 to foster use of child restraints on school buses to transport pre-schoolers. 

Out of concern that placement of a typical car seat in the seat next to an emergency exit window could possibly impede occupant exit in an emergency, and because the public was generally unfamiliar with using child restraints on school buses,  the agency recommended that child restraints not be placed adjacent to emergency exits (guideline, section 5, p. 4).  The point of the recommendation was to make sure that persons using child restraints on school buses carefully consider the egress issue.  It may be possible for integrated child seats and child restraint harnesses without tethers to be installed such that they do not impede emergency egress from the exit.  However, ultimately it is up to those persons with firsthand knowledge of the bus to assess whether installation of a particular child seat would block the exit.^[4]   

Note that NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  Thus, S5.5.3(d) does not create any Federal requirement that would prohibit school bus users from using harnesses, or any other child restraint system, in any particular seat.  Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  For this reason, State law should be consulted regarding the use of child restraints on school buses.[5]  

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions please contact Analiese Marchesseault of my office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

                                                                        Stephen P. Wood

                                                                        Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/18/15

Standard No. 217

Mr. Emad Louis

8300 Snow Egret Way

Fort Worth, TX 76118

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your September 27, 2017 email asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As we understand your email, you are asking whether the standard allows a certain design configuration on a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus.

In your email, you explain that the bus you purchased has a cargo net that can be pulled and secured across a portion of the back of the bus to allow the back of the bus to be used for storage. You state that, behind the cargo net, there are four foldaway seats that are flipped up when the area is used for storage. As we understand your questions, you ask whether, with this bus design, the standard permits a manufacturer to install a roof exit in lieu of a rear exit to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and whether it is permissible to have a rear door that is not designated and labeled emergency exit. Our answer to both questions is yes.[1]

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

In your email, you provided NHTSA with an email exchange that occurred in June 2016 between the bus manufacturer, Glaval Bus (Glaval), and an employee of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In his response, the FTA employee stated that FTA and NHTSA agreed with Glavals interpretation of FMVSS No. 217.

NHTSA has been unable to confirm any communication between FTA and NHTSA. We point out, however, that official interpretations of legal requirements under this agencys statutes, standards, and regulations are issued only by this office and only in writing. We apologize for any confusion that statement may have caused.

Discussion

Roof Exit

Your first question asks whether NHTSA would permit the installation of a roof emergency exit instead of a rear emergency exit in your bus that has a cargo net that can portion off part of the rear of the bus for use as a storage area.

FMVSS No. 217 permits a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus (non-school bus) to meet the requirement for the provision of emergency exits by either meeting the requirements of S5.2.2 or S5.2.3. We assume from the facts you provide that Glaval intended for the bus to meet the requirements in S5.2.2, which applies to buses other than school buses.[2] In relevant part, S5.2.2.2 states that [w]hen the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.

The purpose of S5.2.2.2s requirement to provide a rear exit is to ensure emergency egress in the case of a rollover. To accommodate bus designs that preclude the installation of an accessible rear emergency exit door or window, FMVSS No. 217 allows the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit door or window. However, the agency emphasizes that the alternative roof exit is only permitted when the bus design precludes installation of an accessible rear exit.[3]

An issue raised by your question is: When does a bus configuration preclude installation of an accessible rear exit? Clearly, buses with a rear-engine design preclude installation of an accessible rear exit.[4] NHTSA has also allowed the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit when a bus had a permanent storage cage that blocked access to the rear emergency exit.[5]

While the past interpretations of what designs would preclude the installation of a rear exits have dealt with permanent structures or vehicle features, NHTSA does not require the configuration to be permanent to preclude installation of the rear exit. Given that the addition of the cargo net, when pulled across/installed, could block passengers access to the rear exit door during normal operation and in an emergency, in this circumstance, NHTSA would accept the manufacturers determination that the bus configuration precluded the installation of a rear exit. Therefore, based on the facts you presented, the installation of the emergency roof exit in lieu of an emergency rear exit would be allowed.[6]

Labeling

Your second question asks whether NHTSA would allow your bus to have a rear door that is not designated as an emergency exit. As we state above, a roof emergency exit is permitted to be installed in compliance with S5.2.2.2 in lieu of the rear emergency exit in a bus with the configuration you describe. As long as the bus otherwise complies with FMVSS No. 217, the rear door would not be required to be designated and labeled as an emergency exit.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/7/17

Ref: FMVSS No. 217

Mr. David Prentkowski
Autoliv North America
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Prentkowski:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an inflatable seat belt assembly your company is developing. You ask which strength test applies to a structural sew pattern that connects the assemblys conventional webbing to its inflatable portion. Specifically, you ask us to confirm your tentative conclusion that the sew pattern is subject to the assembly performance requirements contained in S4.4(b)(2). As explained below, S4.4(b)(2) applies to the sew pattern, but it is not the only applicable strength requirement. The sew pattern, along with the rest of the restraint, must also meet the webbing breaking strength requirement in S4.2(b). What follows is our analysis of your question based on the facts you provided.

Description of Your Product

From the description in your letter and a follow-up phone conversation with Daniel Koblenz of my staff on January 19, 2017, we understand your product to be a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a continuous pelvic and upper torso restraint. The restraint is constructed from a segment of conventional webbing that is connected by a sew pattern to an inflatable portion. The unsewn end of the restraints conventional webbing is connected to a retractor mechanism that can be pillar-mounted or parcel shelf-mounted, and the unsewn end of the restraints inflatable portion is connected to an anchor that includes a gas generator that fills the inflatable portion in certain crash modes. While your product is in use, the sew pattern is typically located behind the occupants shoulder between the occupant and the retractor mechanism.

Requirements

FMVSS No. 209 contains two breaking strength requirements that Type 2 seat belt assemblies must meet: one for the entire seat belt assembly and one specifically for the webbing. As to seat belt assemblies, S4.4(b) states, in relevant part: Type 2 seat belt assembly. Except as provided in S4.5, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly including webbing, straps, buckles, adjustment and attachment hardware, and retractors shall comply with the following requirements when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b): (2) The structural components in the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N.

As to webbing, S4.2(b) states, in relevant part: The webbing in a seat belt assembly shall have not less than the following breaking strength when tested by the procedures specified in S5.1(b): . . .Type 2 seat belt assembly. . . 17,793 N for webbing in upper torso restraint. Please note that, under FMVSS No, 209 S4.1(i), all straps that are used in a seat belt assembly to sustain restraint forces must meet the webbing requirements of S4.2. FMVSS No. 209 S3 defines a strap as a narrow nonwoven material used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing.

These two breaking strength requirements are both applicable, which means that an assemblys upper torso webbing (or a strap subject to webbing requirements) is subject to both S4.4(b)(2) and S4.2(b). However, because the breaking strength requirement for the upper torso webbing (17,793 N) is greater than the breaking strength requirement for the upper torso assembly components (6,672 N), the question of whether webbing (or a strap subject to webbing requirements) complies with FMVSS No. 209s breaking strength requirements effectively turns on whether it meets the webbing-specific requirements of S4.2(b).

Discussion

a. The sew pattern is integrated into the upper torso restraint and cannot be tested in isolation. Before discussing which breaking strength requirement applies to the sew pattern, it is necessary to clarify what the sew pattern is. In your letter, you mistakenly discuss the sew pattern as though it is a discrete component with its own compliance requirements that are severable from the requirements that apply to the two restraint segments that the sew pattern connects. While past interpretations have considered hardware components as discrete components, the sew pattern is inherently different than a hardware component.

The sew pattern is not a discrete component; it is a manufacturing material that is integrated into and made a part of the upper torso restraint. For this reason, we have determined that the entire upper torso restraintincluding the sew pattern, conventional webbing and inflatable segmentsshould be treated as a single integrated component for the purpose of determining whether it is subject to the breaking strength tests in S4.4 and S4.2.

b. The upper torso restraint is a structural component that is subject to S4.4(b)(2). In your letter, you state (and we agree) that the sew patternand by extension, the upper torso restraint that it holds togetheris structural. You believe that, because the upper torso restraint is a structural component, it must meet the assembly performance requirement in S4.4(b)(2). We agree that S4.4(b)(2) applies. We do, however, wish to note that this letter supersedes a 1973 letter to Takata Kojyo Co., which determined that S4.4(b)(3) was the relevant requirement.[1]

c. The upper torso restraint is also a strap that is subject to S4.2(b). We have determined that the upper torso restraint falls within the definition of strap. Accordingly, the upper torso restraint, including its subcomponents, must meet the breaking strength requirements of S4.2(b).

Our conclusion that the entire upper torso restraint is a strap is rooted in both the definition of strap and our previous interpretations of that definition. As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 209 defines a strap as a narrow nonwoven material used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing.[2] We interpret the term nonwoven material here to include any restraint material that is not purely constructed out of webbing (i.e., woven) material. This means that a restraint constructed from both woven and nonwoven materials and that is used in place of webbing is considered a strap. Accordingly, we determined in a 2010 letter to Mr. Kazuo Higuchi that the inflatable portion of an inflatable seat belt assembly that was constructed from an inflatable bladder encased in woven fabric fell within the definition of strap.[3]

Consistent with our determination in the Higuchi letter, we have concluded here that the upper torso restraint of your seat belt assembly fits within the definition of strap. Like the inflatable segment in the Higuchi letter, the upper torso restraint in your seat belt assembly is constructed from a combination of woven material (the conventional webbing) and nonwoven material (the inflatable portion and the sew pattern), and is used in a seat belt assembly in place of webbing. Therefore, the entire upper torso restraintincluding the conventional webbing, inflatable portion, and sew patternis a strap.

Because the upper torso restraint is a strap, it is subject to S4.1(i), which states that [a] strap used in a seat belt assembly to sustain restraint forces shall comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2. As noted above, S4.2(b) requires that webbing in the upper torso portion of a seat belt assembly withstand a force of at least 17,793 N. Therefore, to comply with FMVSS No. 209, your seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 17,793 N when tested in the manner prescribed by S4.2. Please note that, as stated in the Higuchi letter, NHTSA will not disassemble the restraint when testing it.

Other Issues

Please be aware that, as a strap the upper torso restraint must meet all of the S4.2 requirements for webbing, not just those for strength and abrasion. We felt it necessary to clarify this point given your statement: [W]e understand that both the webbing and inflatable seat belt portions of the system would need to meet the strength and abrasion resistance requirements as specified in FMVSS 209. FMVSS No. 209 S4.1(i) requires that straps comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2. There are a number of requirements in S4.2 in addition to strength and abrasion resistance.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

NCC0200:Dkoblenz:3/2/17:revised 4/20/17:62992(cyb 5/3/17)

Reprinted with edits 5/3/17 and 5/22/17

S:\INTERP\209\571.209 -- Inflatable Seat Belt Assembly -- Autoliv -- 16-003634 -- 05.22.2017.docx
Greenbooks FMVSS No. 209, Redbooks, NRM, NEF

Ms. Sharon Conrad

Program Manager, Office of Injury Prevention

Georgia Department of Public Health

2600 Skyland Drive, NE, Room 4D

Atlanta, GA 30319

Dear Ms. Conrad:

This responds to your email dated October, 2012 and subsequent conversations with staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting clarification of NHTSAs requirements regarding the buses used by childcare centers to transport children to various locations. You explained to Analiese Marchesseault of my staff that some Georgia childcare centers provide transportation services from the childrens homes to the childcare center only, while some provide transportation from home, the childcare center (for before- or after-school care), and school. You asked specifically about the use of multifunction school activity buses (MFSABs) in these situations.

By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, but does not regulate vehicle use. Several of your questions ask whether our requirements permit the childcare centers to use the buses for transporting the children to the described places. In this letter, we answer your questions about the permissibility of a person selling the new vehicles to the childcare centers. However, since each State has authority to determine how school children must be transported, including the transportation of children by childcare centers, your questions about the permissibility of using the vehicles would be answered by State law.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  Our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),[1] requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs.

In the school bus context, under our regulations a bus is any vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more, including the driver, and a school bus is a bus that is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events.[2] The Safety Act requires any person selling a new school bus (i.e., a bus that meets the school bus definition) to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses.[3] Under our regulations, a multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) is defined as a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students to or from home or school bus stops.[4] An MFSAB must meet all the FMVSSs applicable to school buses except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms).[5]  Under the Safety Act, a person may sell a new MFSAB as long as the bus will not be used to transport students between school and home or school bus stops. If the new bus will be used to transport students between school and home or between school and school bus stops, a school busnot an MFSABmust be sold.

NHTSA interprets school in the context of our school bus regulations not to include daycares, childcare centers, or preschools, including Head Start Programs.[6] Accordingly, NHTSA does not regulate, under our school bus regulations, the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to and from these facilities. We assume in this answer that the center is not also using the vehicles to transport the children to schools.

If the centers are also using the vehicles to transport students to schools, a different outcome can result. Our school bus regulations are applicable to buses that are likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school or related events. Determining whether a vehicle is used significantly for transport to or from school is a case by case determination. For the purpose of responding to your questions, we will assume that the vehicles used to transport students to schools in the situations you describe are used significantly for that purpose.[7]

You have asked about the applicable requirements for a number of scenarios involving child care centers transporting children and students. With the above background information in mind, we will address them in turn.

1. First, you ask if NHTSA regulates the sale of vehicles to childcare centers when the purpose of the vehicles would be to transport children from home to childcare centers. As stated above, NHTSA does not consider childcare centers to be schools in this context. Therefore, NHTSA does not regulate the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to such facilities from their homes. In answer to your specific question asking if childcare centers may be sold an MFSAB for transporting children to and from home to the childcare center, our answer is yes.

2. The second scenario you ask about involves significant transportation to or from school. You ask if NHTSA permits the sale of new MFSABs to childcare centers for the purpose of providing transportation between the childcare center (for before- or after-school care), and school. Our answer is that an MFSAB or a school bus may be sold to a childcare center for this purpose.

While childcare centers are not schools," in the situation you describe they provide transportation to or from school and are therefore covered by the Safety Acts school bus provisions. Your question was addressed in a letter to Lisa Sanford from July 4, 2009,[8] in which NHTSA addressed the issue of a non-school entity providing transportation to after-school activities. We stated that in a situation where buses are used regularly by a non-school entity to take students from school to after-school activities, dealers selling a new bus would be required to sell a bus that met all applicable school bus or MFSAB standards.

Note that this scenario does not involve transporting students to home or school bus stops. Thus, either an MFSAB or a school bus could be sold for transporting students between school and a childcare center. If the bus were transporting students to home or school bus stops, a school bus (and not an MFSAB) must be sold.

3a. Another scenario is a child care center transporting students from home to a childcare center and then to a school, using the same vehicle. NHTSAs regulations require that a new vehicle sold for this purpose would need to be a school bus because it involves significant use of the bus for transporting students to school. Further, a school bus and not an MFSAB must be sold, because an MFSAB is a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students to or from home or school bus stops. In this scenario, childcare centers are essentially transporting students from school to their homes in the same vehicle, and stopping at the childcare center during that trip. Accordingly, a new MFSAB could not properly be sold to a childcare center for these purposes, because transporting students to or from home is involved. A new bus sold to a childcare facility for the purposes of both transporting students to or from school and to or from homes would be required to meet the school bus standards, i.e., a school bus (and not an MFSAB) must be sold.

3b. We reiterate, however, that if a separate vehicle is sold for these two purposes ((1) transporting children between a childcare center and home or school bus stops, and (2) transporting students between a childcare center and school) there is more flexibility regarding the type of vehicle that may be sold. A new MFSAB or school bus may be sold for transporting children solely from childcare centers to school (i.e., there is no transportation to or from home or school bus stops). Additionally, since NHTSA does not regulate, under our school bus regulations, the types of vehicles that may be sold for the purpose of transporting children to and from childcare centers and non-school facilities, vehicles other than MFSABs or school buses may be sold for those non-school transportation purposes (see above answer to scenario number 1).

4. A fourth scenario involves a childcare center transporting students directly from home to school. A dealer selling a new bus would be required to sell a school bus for this purpose. As discussed above in scenario number 3a, this situation involves significant use of the vehicle for transport to school. It also involves transporting students between school and their homes. An MFSAB is a school bus whose purposes do not include transporting students between school and home or school bus stops. Therefore, a new bus sold to a childcare facility for the purposes of transporting students from school to their homes would be required to meet all of the school bus standards.

In closing, we note also that while NHTSA does not regulate the types of vehicles that may be sold for transporting children to Head Start programs, Head Start has regulations regarding vehicle use for its programs. Head Start programs should consult with the Office of Head Start if they have questions regarding compliance with those requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Analiese Marchesseault of my staff (202-366-1723).

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 2/28/13

571.3 VSA School Buses

Ms. Kathleen Weber

Project Director

University of Michigan

Child Passenger Protection Research Program

2901 Baxter Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150

Dear Ms. Weber:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify the meaning of S5.1.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

Section S5.1.3.2 states:

In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, all portions of the test dummys torso shall be retained within the system and neither of the target points on either side of the dummys head and on the transverse axis passing through the center of mass of the dummys head and perpendicular to the heads midsagittal plane, shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces (illustrated in Figure 1C).  (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the underlined phrase means that both of the planes must be passed for there to be a failure, or whether passing a single plane would be sufficient to constitute a failure.  For the reasons set out below, we construe this phrase to mean that passing through any single plane constitutes a failure to comply with the standard.

In reviewing the language of S5.1.3.2, we recognize that the plural planes could be read to refer to both or either of the planes.  Fortunately, we believe this possible ambiguity can be resolved using a common sense approach.  If S5.1.3.2 were read to specify that both of the planes must be passed for there to be a failure, there would be no failure if only the upper limit illustrated in Figure 1C (the plane containing the top-most point on the child restraint system surface) were passed.  That result would render the upper limit plane meaningless.  In contrast, if S5.1.3.2 is construed to mean that passing either of the planes could constitute a failure, each of the planes is meaningful in determining the excursion limits.  For example, it may be possible for the test dummy to not ramp up and exceed the upper limit depicted in Figure 1C, yet the dummys head could rotate sideways in such a way that it could pass through the plane that designates the forward limit, especially with restraints that have little or no side supports for the childs head.

I hope this answers your question.  If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.                                                                  

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/25/98

Ref: Standard No. 213

Ms. Joan Allen

P.O. Box 26315

Raleigh, NC  27611

Dear Ms. Allen:

This responds to your May 17, 2013, letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a car seat hook.  You explain that the device is used to make it easier for a consumer to secure a toddlers car seat.  You ask if the product has to be crashed tested.  This letter explains the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to your product.  The device is not required to be crash tested.

We understand from your letter and the sample product you sent that the car seat hook is a plastic rod about 18 inches long, shaped into a U at one end, like a narrow umbrella handle.  The car seat hook is intended to assist in attaching a forward-facing child restraint system to the vehicle seat using the lap/shoulder belt.  Your website[1] explains that the car seat hook is to help people who have trouble reaching through the openings for the belt.  The written instructions tell consumers to use the hook to grab the seat belt and pull it through the hole that is located in the back of the car seat. 

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.  NHTSA does not endorse any vehicles or items of equipment.  Further, NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or equipment.  Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.  The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to an accessory item like the car seat hook.  Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles.  However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket accessories sold for child restraints, such as the car seat hook.  NHTSA does not require you to crash test the car seat hook. 

However, under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.  As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for any safety-related defects in your product.  I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers.  If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the manufacturers product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We wish to point out that States have the authority to regulate the use of child restraints.  Thus, we recommend that manufacturers check with the States to see if there are any requirements of which they should be aware.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Richard Coon

Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

P.O. Box 2999

Reston, VA  20195-0999

Dear Mr. Coon:

This responds to your letter asking about the meaning of the term modified roof in S3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection mitigation.  The term is used in FMVSS No. 226 for purposes of determining the applicability of the standard, as modified roof vehicles are excluded from the standard (see S2, FMVSS No. 226). 

Your question relates to what you describe as light motorhomes weighing less than 10,000 pounds (approximately 2,000 manufactured each year, in the aggregate).  You describe various ways the roofs of these vehicles are modified by final-stage manufacturers[1] and ask if the resulting vehicles are modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226. 

FMVSS No. 226 sets forth the following definition[2] of modified roof.  Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that did not have an original roof over the driver's compartment.

Discussion

We would like to begin our answer by stating that NHTSA evaluates possible violations of the FMVSSs according to the facts of each particular case.  Thus, we are unable to agree with your view that there is a sweeping exclusion from FMVSS No. 226 for any motor vehicle roof where any part of the original structure has been removed by the final stage manufacturer (your emphasis).  Such a pronouncement implies that merely cutting and plugging a tiny hole into the roof renders FMVSS No. 226 inapplicable, an implication with which we do not agree.  NHTSA would assess whether modifications made to a vehicle roof are bona fide.

 That said, in your letter you describe specific types of roof modifications performed by final-stage manufacturers.  You state:

Small motorhome roof modifications ...range from a complete replacement of the original roof, to partial roof removals and replacement with reinforcing structure and/or additions such as vents with moveable covers, exhaust or air circulation fans, rigid or moveable skylights, satellite dish or television antennae assemblies and rooftop air conditioning units.  Note that these a/c unitsthe most common source of partial roof removalsare not a part of the vehicular systems, are not tied into the vehicles climate control equipment and are intended to operate when the vehicle is stationary and functioning as temporary living quarters.  In fact, all powered equipment installed during the roof modification process also requires the installation of wiring to connect the device to a power source, such as an electrical hookup at the camp site or a generator.  This equipment, and the roof modifications required for their installation, is critical to the vehicles camping and outdoor recreation function.

After considering the information you provide, we agree that vehicles with roofs modified in the manners you describe would be modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226.  It appears such modifications would be made in good faith and not merely to circumvent the application of the standard.

Note, however, that the agency drafted FMVSS No. 226 to exclude modified roof vehicles because NHTSA was concerned about potential impacts of the standard on small entities, i.e., final-stage manufacturers and alterers, that may have to build out a roof or substantially affect the structure and design of the original ejection mitigation side air curtain system.  We would like to urge small entities not to needlessly disconnect or otherwise make nonfunctional ejection mitigation systems that they encounter when producing their vehicles.  If it is possible for them to modify the roof of vehicles that have an FMVSS No. 226 ejection mitigation system without negatively affecting the safety system, we encourage them to do so.  In that way, the modified vehicles would continue to provide the ejection mitigation protection of FMVSS No. 226. 

Finally, NHTSA continues to evaluate the regulatory exception for modified roof vehicles to ensure that the highest possible levels of safety are achieved.  It may be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the current exception through the rulemaking process if it appears that modifiers are needlessly making ejection mitigation systems nonfunctional. 

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

Sincerely,          

Paul A. Hemmersbaugh

Chief Counsel

Dated: 3/22/16

Ref: Standard No. 226

Mr. George Parker

13488 Victory Gallop Way

Gainesville, VA 20155

Dear Mr. Parker:

This responds to your letter concerning the procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection mitigation, for testing side window glazing. Your first question asks if your understanding of the procedures for pre-breaking advanced laminated glazing is correct. As discussed below, we generally agree with your understanding, but we wish to correct a point. You next ask whether a transom section for ventilation that has no headform target locations is excluded from compliance testing. As discussed below, our answer is yes.

Background

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued FMVSS No. 226 to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants through side daylight openings (windows) in rollover crashes.[1] The standards performance requirements ensure that side windows employ ejection mitigation countermeasures in rollovers. To assess compliance, an 18-kilogram (40-pound) impactor is propelled from inside the tested vehicle toward the tested window at points around the windows perimeter, at two different speeds and time intervals. The ejection mitigation countermeasure must prevent the impactor from moving more than a specified distance beyond the plane of the opening.

Manufacturers typically use side curtain air bag technologies and/or advanced glazing to meet FMVSS No. 226. If advanced glazing is used, different test procedures apply depending on whether the glazing is fixed in place or movable[2] and whether the glazing is used with side curtain air bag technology. FMVSS No. 226 sets forth the test conditions for the impactor test which assesses the expected performance of the ejection countermeasures in an actual rollover crash. FMVSS No. 226 includes a pre-breaking procedure that can cause the disintegration of tempered glazing or damage advanced glazing, thus duplicating the typical condition of glazing in real world rollover crashes.

Question One

You ask about the pre-breaking procedures of the standard (S5.4.1). You refer to the following statement in NHTSAs September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55138) response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226: There is never a situation under any part of the standard in which glazing is left in place and unbroken. (78 FR at 55161, col. 2.) You ask: Does unbroken only mean the glazing is subject to the pre-breaking procedure regardless of the outcome of applying the procedure as opposed to actually broken, and that the displacement tests are then conducted with the glazing in place?

Answer: We read your question as having several parts to it, so it may be helpful to restate it as follows: Does advanced glazing need to actually break when subjected to the pre-breaking procedure? Assuming it does not, is the advanced glazing (that has been subjected to the pre-breaking procedure) left in place for the impactor test?

The answer to the first part of the restated question is no, under FMVSS No. 226s pre-breaking procedure (see S5.4), the glazing does not need to actually break in the procedure. S5.4.1.2(a) specifies that pressure is applied using a center punch device only once at each mark location, even if the glazing does not break or no hole results. While the procedure does not require the breakage of the glazing as the outcome of the procedure, as a practical matter, tempered glass will shatter and completely evacuate the opening during the procedure.[3] Advanced laminated glazing is not likely to shatter, but typically cracks at the locations of the center punch application. (Hereinafter, we refer to advanced laminated glazing that has undergone the pre-breaking procedure as conditioned glazing.)

As to whether the conditioned glazing is left in place for the impactor tests, the answer depends on whether the glazing is fixed or movable.

The high- and low-speed impactor tests are specified in S5.5(a) and (b) of FMVSS No. 226, respectively. For all applicable impactor tests at both test speeds, under S5.5, fixed conditioned glazing can always be left in place at the manufacturers option (see S5.4). However, for the low-speed test under S5.5(b)--which only applies if the vehicle has an ejection mitigation countermeasure that deploys in a rollover--if the glazing is movable, it is removed or fully retracted prior to testing.

Question Two

You ask for concurrence with your statement that if a side window has a transom section for ventilation for which there is no headform target locations that the transom section is [excluded] from the standard.

We agree with your statement with an assumption. S4.2.1.3 of FMVSS No. 226 states: If a side daylight opening contains no target locations, the impact test of S4.2.1 is not performed on that opening. Side daylight opening is defined in S3 of the standard. If your transom section is a discrete side daylight opening that contains no target locations, the transom section is excluded from impactor testing. If it is not a discrete side daylight opening, the transom section could be part of the side daylight opening to which it is adjacent.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 3/7/18

Ref: FMVSS No. 226