ID: 2946o

Mr. Robert Daugherty
Quality Assurance Manager
Safety Rehab Systems, Inc.
147 Eady Court
Elyria, OH 44035

Dear Mr. Daugherty:

This is a response to your letter of February 5, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). I regret the delay in this response. Specifically, your letter stated that your company manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Your letter stated that your company believes that Standard 213 does not apply to "durable medical products (wheelchairs, positioning systems)" and asked if this belief is correct. As explained below, your belief is not entirely correct.

Section S3 of Standard No. 213 specifies that "this standard applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft." Section S4 of the standard defines a child restraint system as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pounds or less. Further, paragraph S6.1.2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language: "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed at the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Under these criteria, wheelchairs, strollers, and so forth would not be "child restraint systems" within the meaning of Standard No. 213 because these devices are designed to transport children outside of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Therefore, wheelchairs, strollers, and similar devices are not child restraint systems within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213. Such devices may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, under its authority to regulate medical "devices." However, the devices described in your letter as "positioning systems" are child restraint systems subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Your "Safety Plus Model 501" includes a "removable positioning unit" that is designed to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Your "900 Series Transporter" is designed so that the rear wheels can be folded under to allow the device to be used to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, these devices are "child restraint systems" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213, and must be certified as complying with the requirements of the standard. NHTSA has said in the past that, since it is possible to offer handicapped children the same level of crash protection afforded to all other children, there is no reason to permit handicapped children to be offered a lesser degree of safety protection in the event of a crash. (See the enclosed October 16, 1986 letter I sent to Mr. Terry Woodman on this subject.)

You also asked if there are any standards applicable to "tie-downs" used on school buses. These "tie-downs" are straps designed to restrain wheelchairs and their occupants in a motor vehicle in the event of a crash. Since wheelchairs are not subject to Standard No. 213 or any other of this agency's regulations, as explained above, we have no standard applicable to "tie-downs" or other devices used to position wheelchairs in motor vehicles. I explained this in detail in the enclosed July 31, 1987 letter to Mr. Richard Maher.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Ms.Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/6/88

ID: nht80-2.9

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Home Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact" shall meet the performance requirements of the standard "when tested as a composite with the other materials." Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

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

Steven L. Oesh Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 27, 1980

Dear Mr. Oesh:

As you know, the Standard No. 213 requires labeling and installation diagrams. Normally, these labels are paper with a self-adhesive backing.

Some states require upholstery tags that are also normally paper, and almost always are torn off by the customer.

Our plastic shell to which the labels will be attached and the pad assemblies themselves will conform to the Flammability requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

As the two small labels and the upholstery tag are insignificant compared to the assemblies to which they are attached, and the method of testing is with a 4" x 14" specimen which is large compared to the labels, would paper labels as applied in our application be allowed? I would appreciate your immediate attention to this question.

Don Gerken Product Engineer

ID: 9508

Mr. Carl Haywood
Operations Manager
Emergency Response Specialists
2251 Happy Top Road
Morris, Alabama 35116

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 D:3/17/94

ID: 77-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Edward J. Flesch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et. seq.), provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, none of the persons mentined could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standrad No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $ 1,000.

Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be "rendered inoperative." From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.

SINCERELY,

February 18, 1977

The President The White House

I have a consumer problem and I don't know just where to go for a solution. I've contacted the following with no result.

Better Business Bureau

Department of Transportation

Consumer Product Safety Commission

General Motors Corporation

District Attorney's Office

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Senator Zorinski's Office

A plastic part that attaches the shroud to the retracting device of the front seat belts on my 1975 Chevrolet Nova has broken. I'm certain that the part should cost somewhat less than a dollar. The Regional Representative for General Motors has told me that a law forbids replacing only this part - that the entire seat belt system most be replaced at a cost of over ten dollars plus labor.

If a law does exist in such language that it must be interpreted that way, it should be changed. The part is easily inserted without effecting the safety function of the seat belt system. Its absence does cause damage to the back of the seat by allowing the shroud to catch on the seat fabric.

I have asked each of those I contacted if instructions can be issued allowing reinterpretation of any regulation or law forbidding the sale of the part. Each Government agency has denied responsibility or the ability to find a solution and referred me to one of the others.

This is a prime example of one of those bureaucratic messes of which you have spoken. I could probably manufacture a "do for it" in my own workship, but it has become much more important to me to unravel this mess than it is to repair the broken shroud. Please let me know what can be done.

EDWARD J. FLESCH

MAY 23, 1977

Edward J. Flesch

Your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, regarding your complaint concerning General Motors' refusal to replace a part of your seat belt has been forwarded to the Department of Justice for response.

The Consumer Affairs Section contacted the Office of the Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and advised them of your complaint. We were informed by that Office that it has jurisdiction over requirements for seat belt assemblies and anchorages. We are therefore forwarding your correspondence to the Office of the Chief Counsel for their consideration.

We hope this is of assistance to you.

John H. Shenefield Acting Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

cc: FRANK A. BERNDT

ID: nht93-5.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment and Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/93 from Shintaro Nakatsuka to John Womack (OCC 8580)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR S571.102). You ask whether S3.1.4.1(b) of the standard requires the shift lever positions to be displayed when the vehicle's power has failed and the vehicle has been shifted out of "park" to be towed. For the following reasons, the answer to your question is no.

S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states that:

(I)f the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, . . . shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

You indicate that your question concerns the relationship between this section and S4.2.2(b)(1) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. S4.2.2(b)(1) allows vehicles to be able to shift out of "park" without a key under certain conditions. You point out that S4.2.2(b)(1) was added to permit the vehicle to be towed when there is an electrical failure of the system. (See final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration, 56 FR 12464; March 26, 1991.) In effect, you ask, "When a disabled vehicle's transmission is not in park because the vehicle is being towed, must the electronic transmission gear shift position be displayed?"

The answer is no. Standard No. 102 presumes a functioning vehicle with a functioning gear shift lever sequence. This is indicated in S1. Purpose and scope of Standard No. 102, where one of the purposes is to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors. Avoiding shifting errors is important when the vehicle is being driven. In the event of a power failure in a vehicle incorporating electronic transmission gear shift sequence displays, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven, or of having its gears shifted. Therefore, since the standard did not contemplate driving or shifting gears in the event of a power failure, the standard was not intended to regulate the transmission shift display in the event of an electrical or other power failure, when the vehicle is taken out of the "park" position in order to be towed.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1985-02.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.

In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.

The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.

Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:

1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).

2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?

We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

NH/mls

enclosures

ID: nht72-4.16

DATE: 10/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1972, on the subject of warning system and interlock system operation under Standard No. 208.

The table enclosed with your letter lists all combinations of front seat occupancy and front seat belt usage that are possible in a vehicle with two front seating positions. You ask, as to each of these combinations, whether you have correctly understood the operation of the interlock and warning system. We find that a large majority of the combinations shown in your table are correctly interpreted but that a few are in error or are in need of further clarification.

The primary source of error in the table seems to be confusion as to the effect of the driver's absence from his seat. Under S7.4.1, the conditions under which a failure to operate the belt will require the interlock system to prevent engine operation are specified in S7.4.1(a) and (b). Each of these conditions specifies that the driver's position is occupied, so that if the driver is not in his seat neither condition (a) nor condition (b) is met and interlock system operation is not required.

Applying this interpretation to the matrix in your table discloses that two cases, 18 and 25, are incorrectly interpreted. In each of these cases the driver is not in his seat and the interlock would not be required to operate, even though in both cases the passenger has operated his belt out of sequence and in one case the belt at the vacant driver's position is buckled.

Although interlock operation is not required in cases 18 and 25, a manufacturer would be permitted to design his interlock system to operate in these circumstances. Eighteen and 25 should therefore be treated in the same manner as the other cases in the matrix (11-17, 24) in which interlock operation is shown to be within the manufacturer's discretion.

The warning system, which is required to operate when the ignition is in the start position if the operations required by S7.4.1 to start the engine have not been performed, is on a different footing under conditions where the interlock is permitted, but not required, to operate. Under such conditions, S7.3.5.4 does not require the warning to operate in the start position. We would, however, strongly recommend that the warning system be designed to operate whenever the interlock prevents engine operation, regardless of whether or not S7.4.1 requires operation.

One other case in your table should also be corrected. Under Case 4, you indicate that interlock operation would be within the discretion of the manufacturer. It is our opinion that if the driver has properly operated his belt the interlock and warning system should not operate, even though the belt at the empty passenger's seat has been fastened.

Please advise us if you have further questions.

ID: 10650

Paul N. Wagner, President
Bornemann Products, Inc.
402 Industrial Drive
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of January 10, 1995, requesting further interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat.

Your first question is a follow-up to our December 23, 1994, letter concerning the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. Section S4.2.1 states:

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

You asked for confirmation that a "rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, ... assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position." This is correct.

Your second question concerns "continuous engagement." You described "continuous engagement" as follows:

continuous engagement ... simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state during adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw- drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

You asked whether the recliner on an integrated seat must have "continuous engagement" to comply with the safety standards.

In the December 23 letter, I explained that NHTSA may choose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. However, this does not require "continuous engagement." If a seat has specific adjustment positions, and is released or unlocked to move between those positions, NHTSA would not test the seat between adjustment positions.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:3/21/95

ID: nht95-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1995

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

TO: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/10/95 LETTER FROM PAUL N. WAGNER TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of January 10, 1995, requesting further interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat.

Your first question is a follow-up to our December 23, 1994, letter concerning the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. Section S4.2.1 states:

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

You asked for confirmation that a "rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, . . . . assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position." This is correct.

Your second question concerns "continuous engagement." You described "continuous engagement" as follows:

continuous engagement . . . . simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment t o be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state during adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw-drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

You asked whether the recliner on an integrated seat must have "continuous engagement" to comply with the safety standards.

In the December 23 letter, I explained that NHTSA may choose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. However, this does not require "continuous engagement." If a seat has specific adjustment positions, and is released or unloc ked to move between those positions, NHTSA would not test the seat between adjustment positions.

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

ID: 1983-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LINDA ANDERSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 21, 1982 LETTER FROM ANDERSON TO OESCH IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1982, letter and subsequent January 12, 1983, letter submitting supplementary information concerning a play tray that you want to produce. You ask in general whether that tray would be required to comply with any of the requirements applicable to child seating systems in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. In a conversation that you had with Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, you indicated that you no longer need information relating to the first two questions raised in your November letter. Accordingly, we will focus on the other issues that you raised.

The play tray that you describe would be attached to a child seat by the use of velcro fasteners secured around the restraint belts of the child seat. You state that the restraints would have to be in their proper position before the tray, which itself is not designed as a restraint, could be attached. You ask whether a manufacturer of a child seat could sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system or whether it could be marketed separately.

If the play tray were marketed as part of a child seat, it would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard applicable to child seats. Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or moveable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the tray attached to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. It does not appear likely that the tray would comply with those requirements.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child restraint systems, it would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. That standard applies to new child seating systems that are designed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not constitute a child seating system designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

You should be aware, however, that your tray would be considered motor vehicle equipment. As such it would be subject to our defect authority. If it were found that a substantial number of your trays were being improperly used as the sole restraint device on a child seat by connecting the tray without using the proper seat belt restraint system, the agency might determine that this constitutes a safety-related defect. Also, this could be the source of product liability suits in the event that your tray was involved in an accident where a child is injured while improperly restrained. From our analysis of your diagrams, this type of misuse appears to be likely.

In a final question, you asked whether the regulations ever change. The answer to that question is yes. The agency frequently amends its own regulations acting upon new information or changed safety needs. Further, the agency receives petitions from members of the public to amend its regulations. The process for submitting those petitions is outlined in Part 552 of our regulations (copy enclosed).

Enclosure