ID: aiam3241

Dear Mr. Stehlik: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladisla Radovich asking whether your 'Kar-Kot' rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.; The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standar No 213, *Child Seating Systems* (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to 'systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children.' According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot 'has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat' and was 'developed for sleeping/resting'. Since the Kar- Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.; The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213 *Child Restraint Systems* (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, 'designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat , or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' If the 'Kar-Kot' will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child (sic) using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.; Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, you product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety- related defects in the Kar-Kot.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Addressee not given

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received until October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.

Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be not less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged "with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position," the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.

You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of the system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner; under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.

Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitted which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht73-3.3

DATE: 11/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning the installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength of seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.

If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use in the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.

We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that they have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 23, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel NHTSA

Recent advertisements tell us that court decisions have held that it is a right of every child, regardless of physical or mental handicaps, to have a publicly financed education. In addition to this, there seems to be increased awareness of the special needs of handicapped children.

For these reasons, the usage of, and demand for special vehicles to transport handicapped children to and from school has increased in the past few years. With this increased usage, the problem of "passenger containment" during transportation has become more acute. Typical vehicles are used to transport both wheechair-confined passengers and other passengers who are ambulatory when aided, but yet have reduced muscular control. The problem we wish to address deals with the containment of these latter passengers in regular school-bus type seats during normal vehicle operation.

We have received several requests to install seatbelts in these special vehicles - not to mitigate the results of any accident - but rather to contain passengers during normal vehicle operation. Heretofore, we have declined such requests because our interpretation of FMVSS 209, S2 and S3 indicates that any such belts would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 and FMVSS 210 even though seat belts are not now required for bus passenger seats.

We have not attempted to build seats with belts that meet these regulations because:

2

1. Anchoring (3) belts to the seat frame would require the frame to withstand a 15,000 lb. load as specified by FMVSS 210, S5.1. Current seats cannot withstand this loading and the market does not warrant the cost of a totally redesigned and re-tooled seat for handicapped passengers.

2. Anchoring belts to the floor would inhibit wheelchair movement within the vehicle, would present unacceptable tripping hazards to already handicapped children and is not acceptable to the purchasers and users of these special vehicles.

However, demand for occupant containment devices has increased to the point where some states are requiring them in their specifications. For example, the latest specification from Pennsylvania reads:

"Seat frames shall be equipped with rings or other devices to support pupils. This is not a seat belt or harness intended to mitigate the result to traffic accidents."

Therefore, we would like to propose that seatbelts which do not meet the full anchorage strength requirement of FMVSS 210 be allowed in special vehicles to transport handicapped children. Clearly these devices would add to passenger protection in all modes of operation.

Because of the urgency of this matter, we would appreciate an early response. Thank you.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Dave Phelps Jim Moorman John Maddox

ID: reversibleseat

Mr. Michael S. Hemenway
8389 Pleasantview Drive
Mounds View, MN 55112




Dear Mr. Hemenway:

This responds to your letter concerning the concept of "reversible front automobile seating".You stated that the concept involves an automobile seat that can be manipulated to face either the normal, forward-facing direction or a rear-facing direction, allowing the occupant to face the second row of seating. You specifically asked whether such a reversible automobile seat would be "allowed in the marketplace without . . . crash testing," if it was clearly stipulated that the reversible seat can only be used (1) when the vehicle is not in a drive gear ("Park" or "Neutral" w/parking brake), and (2) when the reversed seat is unoccupied by a person during travel.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements.

We have issued a number of safety standards related to seats and occupant protection, including, but not limited to, Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, Standard No. 207, Seating systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

In asking whether a reversible automobile seat would be allowed in the marketplace without crash testing in certain situations, I assume you are asking whether the vehicle would be subject to our crash test requirements with the seat in the rear-facing position. I note that the general issue of how a vehicle with reversible seats would be tested is relevant not only to crash test requirements, but also to various other requirements such as ones on seat strength, seat belts, and so forth.

In order to provide a complete answer to your question, it would first be necessary to identify and analyze each potentially relevant requirement, including any specified test procedures, to determine how the requirement would generally apply to a reversible seat in the rear-facing position. It would then be necessary to analyze whether the requirement would apply differently in special situations. While we are able to respond to specific requests for interpretation, we do not have the resources to provide this type of detailed analysis.

I would observe that, assuming a vehicle is subject to a particular test requirement with a reversible seat in the rear-facing position, the vehicle would not be excluded from that requirement merely because a warning was provided that the seat was not to be occupied in that position when the vehicle was in motion. A vehicle might be excluded if the reversible seat could only be used in its forward-facing position while the vehicle is in motion. However, we would need to know more about the specific vehicle design before providing an interpretation, and would only provide it in the context of a specific test requirement.

Enclosed is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.7/11/05

ID: nht79-1.45

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of October 17, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls, and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal switch handle so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear preceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate identification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

OF AMAERICA, Inc.

October 17, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: @ 571.101 101-80

Dear Sir:

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd, the manufacturer of Subaru motor vehicles, is working on their 1980 Model Year car lines for the U.S. market. Last week via telephone we contacted NHTSA's Mr. John Carson for an opinion about the identification symbol markings which will be required on our turn signal switch. Mr. Carson informed us that we are not the only auto manufacturer to inquire about vertical arrows but that we should write for an interpretation.

Fuji plans to identify their turn signal switch handle by using arrows as shown in Table One of the standard, but plans to have the arrows in a vertical mode rather than horizontal. If we (FHI) do display the "arrows" in a vertical axis will our symbol be in compliance?

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

CC: FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD; FUJI LIAISON OFC.

ID: 22898ogm

Mr. Ray Metzger
KayRay Products
P.O. Box 6787
Spring Hill, FL 34611





Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your letter concerning a device your company manufactures known as the "Relax-A-Strap." As indicated by the sample of the device enclosed with your letter, the "Relax-A-Strap" is intended to slide over the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. According to the instructions accompanying the device, the "Relax-A-Strap" allows an occupant to position the shoulder belt in the manner they desire and then use the device to prevent the belt from being retracted against their body. You request that the agency advise you as to whether the "Relax-A-Strap is safe "for the general consumer to use as per instructions and illustrations."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The agency cannot provide you with the opinion that you seek. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product (FMVSS). We do have a standard (FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

Your product is apparently intended to restrict the operation of the retractor attached to the shoulder portion of a Type II seat belt and allow the shoulder belt to move away from the neck and shoulder of the occupant. It functions as a seat belt positioner. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164)(copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the Relax-A-Strap would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. Assuming we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate issuing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by a commercial business, it must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.9/13/01

ID: 1983-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Sreet, S .W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt :

A great deal of confusion exists in the automotive industry concerning the precise classification of 'mini-vans'. Specifically, these vehicles could be classified as passenger vehicles, multipurpose vehicles (MPV), or light-duty trucks (LDT), depending on the criteria applied. Mazda (North America), Inc. is interested in this subject and has a number of items that have not been satisfied by existing definitions.

Please examine the following questions and respond to relevant safety compliance implications, if any.

1. Existing standards (MVSS ? 571.3 (b)) indicate the criteria for a multipurpose vehicle as being 'constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road use'. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction --a) Is the same chassis considered in the modification of the floor pan from LDT to MPV? (See Sketch 1).

b) What impact would floor pan geometry modification from the truck versions to the MPV version have on MPV classification, assuming identical suspension, steering and driveline components?

c) Can a common floor pan be used for both the truck version and the MPV version, with the addition of a flat platform in the truck version --

1) Bolted in place (removable)?

2) Welded in place (permanent)? (See Sketch 2).

2. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction, what influence does the rear seating design have on MPV classification if the additional seating configurations are --

a) Pedestal assemblies bolted to the floor pan that when removed result in a flat surface? (See Sketch 3).

b) Attached seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward together at a single pivot with respect to the floor pan result in a flat surface? (See sketch 4).

c) Separate seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward sequentially at two pivot points resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 5).

d) Fold down seat backs attached at the pivot point to a stationary seat cushion resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 6).

3. If a MPV classification is desired as 'derived' from a truck chassis --

a) Assuming the engineering, design, tooling, testing, etc. is completed for the truck version, must the truck version be built at al1 to insure MPV classification?

b) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the MPV version be introduced first followed by a later truck version introduction?

c) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the truck and MPV be introduced simultaneously?

d) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, must the truck be introduced in the United States market to insure MPV classification?

e) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, does the proportion of truck versus MPV versions sold influence the MPV classification if --

1) Both versions are sold in the United States?

2) Only the MPV version is sold in the United States?

Thank you for your help in this important matter.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc:Mr. R. Fairchild

INSERT GRAPH

ID: 11738BBY.BLT

Mr. Edward C. Chen
Pacific Quest International
9 Egret Lane
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your April 9, 1996, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called Athe BabyBelt.@ You ask whether the BabyBelt is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the BabyBelt in a letter and sketch to the agency. I note that you had marked the word AProprietary@ on the letter. In an April 11, 1996, telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and sketch in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

According to your letter, the BabyBelt is a device designed for use with forward-facing child restraint systems, to Asafely secure a child safety seat to the front passenger bucket style auto seat.@ The BabyBelt consists of Aan automobile grade nylon web belt (approximately 52 inches long), a positive retention buckle system (two pieces, made out of stamped steel), and an adjustable velcro attachment sleeve.@ The BabyBelt is placed through the frame of a child seat, Aand then wrapped around the back rest of the passenger seat. The belt is then tightened down to prevent the baby seat [sic] from moving in the case of sudden deceleration.@ You state that the BabyBelt is to supplement, and not replace, the vehicle=s belt system as the means for attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. The product will be permanently labeled with a warning that the BabyBelt is supplemental to the vehicle belt system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal

motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the BabyBelt. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "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." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the BabyBelt to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the BabyBelt, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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.

You ask us to discuss any concerns we might have about the BabyBelt. One concern we have relates to the strength of the vehicle seat back to which the BabyBelt would be attached. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with the requirements of Standard 207, Seating Systems. Among other requirements, Standard 207 specifies strength requirements for the vehicle seat back, to minimize the likelihood of seat failure in a crash. When the BabyBelt is attached to the vehicle seat back as shown in your sketch, in the event of a crash the seat back will be subjected to forces resulting from the loading of the child seat and child occupant. In the absence of the BabyBelt, these forces are not normally imposed on the vehicle seat back, but are instead transferred to the vehicle structure through the seat belt anchorages. We suggest that you evaluate the strength of vehicle seats to ensure that they are strong enough for the loads imposed by the child seat and child occupant through the BabyBelt.

Another concern relates to where in the vehicle a child seat would have to be located to use the BabyBelt. Because the BabyBelt secures a child seat by wrapping around the back of the seat back on which the child seat is attached, the product can only be used with bucket style seats (as indicated on your sketch) or with a split back seat (as you informed Ms. Fujita). Using the BabyBelt with a bucket style seat necessitates placing the child restraint in the front seat of most passenger cars, because bucket seats are provided in the front, and not in the rear. Children are safer riding in the rear seats of vehicles than in the front seat. We recommend your instructions avoid encouraging consumers to place a child seat in the front seat if the child restraint can be placed in the rear. You might also consider informing them that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. Such a statement is required to be in the instructions for child restraints systems (49 CFR '571.213, S5.6.1.1).

Related to the concern discussed directly above, it appears the BabyBelt could possibly be used in the rear seat in a passenger car that has a split back seat, but even there it cannot be used in the center rear seating position. The rear center seating position is generally the safest.

Finally, you state in your letter that the BabyBelt will have a permanent warning label indicating that the belt is not to replace the vehicle=s belt system as a means of attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. We agree that the warning is critical to reduce the likelihood that consumers may mistakenly use the BabyBelt as the primary means of attaching their child seats to the vehicle seat, and urge you to make the permanent warning clear and conspicuous. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them Ato be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the user=s attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle . . . .@ Enclosed is an October 13, 1993 final rule on this Alockability@ requirement. It appears that the requirement will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the BabyBelt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/15/96

ID: aiam4400

Dear Mr. George: Secretary Dole has asked me to respond to your letter to her, in whic you asked why we believe it is necessary to have laws mandating the use of safety belts. You stated that you believe a public education campaign about safety belt use would have been sufficient. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our position to you.; During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximately 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.; Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities b 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, 'We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.'; This Department and other groups tried many public education efforts t make these facts known to the public, with the anticipation that more people would use safety belts when they knew the facts. Despite these efforts, the rate of usage for safety belts did not change substantially from what it had been in 1967. As recently as 1983, the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants was only slightly above 12 percent.; This trend suggested that public education campaigns *alone* would no substantially reduce unnecessary deaths and injuries on our highways. In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 States and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I want to emphasize that each of these State legislatures made their own decisions with respect to safety belt use laws. This Department neither has nor seeks any authority to withhold Federal funds if States do not adopt or repeal safety belt use laws. We do, however, believe that safety belt use laws are more than justified by the possibility of achieving substantial reductions in vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and reducing the financial burden on the taxpayers. The available data show that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1986, and 1,750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt use laws.; We agree with you, however, that safety belt use laws *alone* may no ensure long-term increased usage of safety belts. Simply requiring persons to wear their safety belts does not get to the heart of the problem of non- usage: lack of knowledge and negative attitudes regarding occupant restraints. Experience has shown that a combination of usage requirements *and* information and education campaigns are the most effective way to get more people to wear their safety belts. Therefore, we have continued our public information and education campaigns about safety belts, as has the State of Kansas. As a result of these combined efforts, our most recent data show that the overall safety belt usage rate for front seat occupants is now slightly above 40 percent.; We in the Department of Transportation are committed to reducing a much as possible the deaths and injuries on our nation's roads. This mission can only succeed with the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like yourself. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, and please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns about our programs.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4207

Dear Mr. Bereuter: Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a lette from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.; Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourag States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent' concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.; Some background information on our school bus regulations might b helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.; However, large school buses already offer substantial protection t passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.; Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed i a June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled 'Safety Belts in School Buses.' I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.; Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation an use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.; I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installatio of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel