ID: 19187.drn

Larry Schooley, Senior Director
Bancroft School
Hopkins Lane
P.O. Box 20
Haddonfield, NJ 08033-0018

Dear Mr. Schooley:

This responds to your request for an "exemption" from a statute that you describe as being "passed as of July 31, 1998, requiring all students to be transported in a school bus." Your letter describes the Bancroft School as a "private school for the handicapped." We cannot grant your exemption since there is no Federal statute such as the one you describe, requiring school bus transportation for students. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to do so, and does not require any school to transport students by school bus only. Transportation for students in your school would be determined by State law.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

In general, NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

Dorothy Nakama of my staff has discussed your letter with Ms. Linda Wells, Director, Office of Pupil Transportation, New Jersey Department of Education. Ms. Wells indicated that the issue raised in your letter may concern a matter falling within New Jersey's jurisdiction. Therefore, please address your concerns to:

Ms. Linda Wells, Director
Office of Pupil Transportation
New Jersey Department of Education
P. O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Ms. Linda Wells, Director
Office of Pupil Transportation
New Jersey Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
ref:571#VSA
d.2/26/99

ID: 1918o

Mr. Byung M. Soh
Marketing Director
Target Marketing Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 59483
Chicago, IL 60659-0483

Dear Mr. Soh:

This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T."

First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. l08 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. l08 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment.

Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. l08 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY8l Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting.

The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. l08 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of l0 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. l08's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity.

Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. l08, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. l08, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws.

These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:9/l3/88

ID: 1918y

Mr. Wayne Krause
Engineering Supervisor
Waltco Truck Equipment Company
P.O. Box 1186
Gardena, CA 90249-1186

Dear Mr. Krause:

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, l989, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your "RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit". You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. l08, you propose to use two sets of lamps. "Light Set l is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails." The other, "Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body...." Light Set l would be visible "from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights." The other arrangement, Light Set 2, "would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle...." You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. l08, and ask for our comments.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part:

[E]ach lamp shall ... shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice..... However, if motor vehicle equipment ... prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp...an auxiliary lamp...meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided.

While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. The paragraph clearly states that "each" lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp "meeting the requirements of this paragraph" shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamps in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. l08 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: 1919y

Mr. David S. Hughes
3150 W. 4299 So.
West Valley City, UT 84119

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a lighting fixture you wish to install on your trailer. Your diagram shows it to be a rectangular unit that displays "Thanks Driver" or "Thank You" as a courtesy message. The unit may be mounted on the rear of the trailer, "between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer", or "directly behind the mud flaps." In either location, you state that it "would be out of the way of any regulated light." You are also interested in the possibility of selling the lamp. I regret the delay in responding.

This agency has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" individual items of lighting equipment. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of your device to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting administered by this agency, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the standard was issued. With respect to your installation of the lamp on your own truck, this agency has no regulations that would govern such an action. The acceptability of this device would be determined under the laws of the individual States in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and operated. We are unable to advise you on State law and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for guidance, at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

We assume that your interest in selling the lamp is as an aftermarket accessory to truck owners. If the lamp is installed by the owner of the truck, once again there are no Federal standards that apply to it, only the laws of the individual States. However, if the lamp is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law its installation must not render inoperative, either in whole or in part, any of the lighting equipment required by the Federal lighting standard. To aid these parties in avoiding a violation of that prohibition, you should ensure the wiring does not interfere with the effectiveness of the wiring of lamps installed in accordance with Federal requirements. Without a photo, we are unsure of the relationship of the location of the courtesy device in either of the two locations you have suggested to the location of other rear lights required by Federal law, such as identification lamps, clearance lamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, etc., though you have stated that it is "out of the way" of them. However, your statement indicates that you recognize the importance of ensuring that the signal from a supplementary lamp not dilute the effectiveness of Federally-required lighting equipment, and we appreciate your concern.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: 1920y

Robert Knauff, President
Applied Research & Design, Inc.
Markethouse Suite 405
289 E. 5th St
St. Paul, MN 55l0l

Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, l989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made available to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as the patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its l987 and l988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September l, l985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. l08 against physical combinations of lighting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehicles, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. l08 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. However, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August l6, l988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rendering inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of signals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps. If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, that States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/24/89

ID: 19211.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Hayvenhurst Ave.,Unit A,
Van Nuys, CA 91406

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1998, with respect to an interpretation this Office furnished Gary Starr on May 22, 1998.

With reference to electric bicycles, this letter stated that

"If the pedal assist system will not operate on its own in the absence of muscular effort (after it may have been started by muscular power), the bicycle on which it is installed will not be deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

You interpret this statement to mean:

"If the electric motor can only be activated by muscular power, (i.e., by pedaling the bicycle to a certain minimum speed), and the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the bicycle even if the rider then stops pedaling (i.e., stops exerting muscular power), then the vehicle is still not deemed to be a 'motor vehicle.'"

This is an incorrect interpretation. If the motor, once activated by muscular power, can continue to drive the vehicle in the absence of muscular power, the vehicle is considered to be a "motor vehicle" since, without the input of muscular power, the vehicle is entirely "driven by mechanical power" with the meaning of the statutory definition of a "motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). Our letter of May 22, says, in effect, that a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle" if, in the absence of muscular power, mechanical power alone is insufficient to drive it.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.1/14/99

ID: 19219.ztv

Ms. Jacqueline Glassman
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1401 H Street, NW CIMS 936-00-00
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-2110

Re: Interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Standard No. 108;

Petition for Decision of Inconsequentiality

Dear Ms. Glassman:

I am responding to your letter of December 3, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This question arises in the context of an apparent noncompliance in certain Plymouth and Dodge Neon headlamps, duly reported to us, and which is the subject of an inconsequentiality petition that you have filed with us.

S7.8.1(b) requires motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp, to identify the optical axis of the headlamp, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment for aiming purposes. The choice of the design of the mark or markings is left to the manufacturer. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp.

Apparently, your company decided that it failed to comply with S7.8.1(b), and filed a Part 573 report with a petition for a decision that the noncompliance was inconsequential to safety. Afterwards, "agency staff asked the company to consider whether a conspicuous horizontal line that fully crosses the headlamp and from which the optical axis easily may be approximated serves as the marking required by S7.8.1(b)." You have "used that line to approximate the optical axis and has confirmed through appropriate testing that aiming the lamps from that point falls within applicable parameters." You have asked "whether the simple measurement from the conspicuous horizontal line across the front of the headlamp constitutes a mark sufficient to comply with S7.8.1(b)."

The horizontal line across the face of the headlamp, which identifies the optical axis, is a "mark" within the meaning of S7.8.1. This has been confirmed by direct examination of a Neon headlamp by our senior lighting engineer, Rich Van Iderstine, the "agency staff" you referred to. Accordingly, the Neon headlamps are considered to meet the marking requirements of S7.8.1(b), and your inconsequentiality petition is moot.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/21/99

ID: 1921y

Mr. Richard J. Strohm
100 Devon Lane
Naperville, IL 60540

Dear Mr. Strohm:

This responds to your letter, referred to me by Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency, which asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to authorize the adjustment of the front seat in your Chevrolet Caprice by your automobile dealer. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter and enclosure explained that you would like your dealer to move back the front bench seat in your newly-purchased vehicle to give you more leg room. You stated that the front seat in your new vehicle is mounted closer to the front of the vehicle than the seat in your former car had been, and that you were more comfortable with the latter seat placement. You said that you contacted a customer service representative and that he told you Chevrolet is prohibited by law from moving the seat. You asked how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to make the desired adjustments. Federal law does not directly prohibit your dealer from adjusting the seat; it does, however, indirectly set limits on the modifications.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles and equipment conform to all of our safety standards applying to their product. If a new vehicle is modified before its first sale to a consumer, the person making the modification would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moving back a seat on a new vehicle could affect compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat position as long as the modified seat and related safety components continue to perform in the manner required by the applicable standards.

Your situation involves the modification of a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. While our safety standards apply only to new vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on modifications of this type. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, then /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

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

Your dealer is not prohibited by /108(a)(2)(A) from making the seat adjustment if the adjustment can be made without rendering inoperative your vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. It may be that the dealer you contacted has determined that it cannot move the seat rearwards without rendering inoperative a component or element of design now in compliance with the Federal safety standards.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) only applies to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Thus, under Federal law, vehicle owners may themselves make any modifications to their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any applicable State laws limiting modifications.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:207#VSA d:7/3l/89

ID: 19222.ztv

Mr. Edward L. Patterson, Sr.
Operations Manager
Gilbar Testing Laboratories, Inc.
6570 19 Mile Road
Sterling Heights, MI 48314

Dear Mr. Patterson:

We are replying to your letter of November 24, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 allows the installation of protective covers for headlamp aiming adjusters, "removable without the use of tools." You wish to manufacture a design to provide a locking feature. The design "would require only a slight rotating movement to lock." You "propose placing an indentation or hole in the cover, which would allow either a `key' or `coin' be used in order to accomplish this movement." You ask whether "the use of a coin or key, as proposed, be in violation."

The use of a key or coin to complete the locking movement would not result in a noncompliance with S7.8.2, but your letter implies that their use is also required for the cover to be removed. As we informed Ford Motor Company on February 12, 1998 (copy of letter enclosed), we consider an ignition key to be a "tool." If a tool is needed to remove a protective cover, then S7.8.2 has not been met. Similarly, we would consider a coin to be a "tool" when used for the purpose of removing the cover.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.2/17/99

ID: 1922y

Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr.
Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.
5750-A North Hoover Blvd.
P.O. Box 30101
Tampa, FL 33630

Dear Mr. Potter:

This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the delay in responding.

NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make replacement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-compliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase.

With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall responsibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year period, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:213 d:7/27/89