ID: 13960sew.lab

Mr. Strawn Cathcart
Early Development Company
6135 Park South Dr., Suite 420
Charlotte, NC 28210

Dear Mr. Cathcart:

This responds to your letter concerning the air bag warning label requirement adopted in Standard 213 by a November 27, 1996 final rule (61 FR 60206). I apologize for the delay in responding. The rule requires rear-facing child seats to have a specified label "permanently affixed to the outer surface of the cushion or padding in or adjacent to the area where a child's head would rest, so that the label is plainly visible or easily readable." S5.5.2(k)(4).

You ask whether the standard would permit you to sew one side of the label in the fabric seam in the head area of the child seat cushion. You state that you have tried other methods of permanently affixing the label but each has been unsatisfactory. You state that heat transfer results in an illegible label, due to the uneven surface of woven fabrics. Sewing all four perimeter sides to the surface of the cushion causes wrinkling in the surface of the label, due to the thick foam to which the fabric is laminated, which can make the label difficult to read. You state that sewing one end of the label into the seam eliminates all of these problems.

Our answer is that the label may not be sewn on only one side as you suggest. The air bag warning is, at this time, "the most important issue to communicate to consumers." 61 FR at 60214. NHTSA required the label to be where the child's head rests or adjacent to that area "to ensure that parents see the label each time they place the seat in a vehicle." Id. By virtue of its location and ease of detachment by cutting, tearing or pulling off a single row of stitching, the label you suggest invites removal. As such, we do not believe the label is likely to stay attached during the lifetime of the child restraint in satisfaction of the permanently affixed requirement of S5.5.2 (k)(4).

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d.6/26/97

ID: 13961.df

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Rd.
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter asking about the meaning of "high-force" and "low-force access regions" in S5.3.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 for school bus emergency exit windows, and the reason for the differing force requirements in the two access regions. I regret the delay in responding.

S5.3.3.2 states:

* * * [E]ach school bus emergency exit window shall allow manual release of the exit by a single person, from inside the passenger compartment, using not more than two release mechanisms located in specified low-force or high-force regions (at the option of the manufacturer) with force applications and types of motions that conform to either S5.3.3.2(a) or (b) of this section. * * * * *

1. Emergency exit windows--Low-force application.
   1. Location: Within the low-force access regions shown in Figures 1 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
   2. Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
   3. Magnitude: Not more than 89 [N]ewtons.

2. Emergency exit windows--High-force application.
   1. Location: Within the high-force access regions shown in Figures 2 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
   2. Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.
   3. Magnitude: Not more than 178 [N]ewtons.

The terms "high force" and "low force access regions" have been used in Standard 217 since 1972. S5.3.3.2 limits where release mechanisms for a window exit may be placed, and the force and motion needed to release the exit. The high force and low force access regions depicted in the figures show where release mechanisms may be located, and show, depending on where the release mechanism is located, which force and type of motion requirements apply. The idea underlying the exit release requirements is that if the direction of motion necessary to operate a release mechanism makes operating the mechanism relatively easy, and if the mechanism is within relatively easy reach, the force level necessary to operate the mechanism may be relatively high. Otherwise the force must be relatively low.

You ask: "Does [the reference to the access regions] mean that release mechanisms located in the low-force region are limited to utilizing a rotary or straight motion and that release mechanisms located in the high-force region are limited to straight and perpendicular motion?" You are correct that among the requirements of S5.3.3.2 are that rotary or straight type motions must be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application and that a straight motion must be used for release mechanisms located in regions of high force application.

If you have other questions, please call us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:217
d.7/25/97

ID: 13962-1.pja

Mr. R.H. Anderson
Senior Manager of Engineering
Landoll Corporation
1900 North Street
P.O. Box 111
Marysville, Kansas 66508

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter concerning our December 10, 1996, interpretation to your associate Mr. Thomas Joyce, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding. You asked us to reexamine the letter as it would affect your tilt bed trailers.

As we stated in the December 10 letter, to be excluded from Standard 224, work performing equipment on the vehicle must reside in or move through the area specified for the underride guard "while the vehicle is in transit." The quoted language means during the period that the vehicle itself is traveling over the road. Your letter appears to assume that because your frame rails are work performing equipment that move through the area specified for the underride guard, the special purpose vehicle exclusion must apply to your trailers. As the regulation is currently written, that is not so. The fact that the frame rails move out of that area while your vehicle is in transit and, as your letter says, cannot move through that area during transit, means that the exclusion does not apply to your vehicles.

Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment.

I understand that you and Paul Atelsek of my staff discussed possible engineering solutions that you have not yet explored. If you need further assistance, please contact Mr. Atelsek at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure: 49 CFR Part 555
ref:205

d:7/17/97

ID: 13967.wkm

Mr. Fred J. Turcotte
2633 Parisian Court
Punta Gorda, FL 33950-6325

Dear Mr. Turcotte:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this agency recommending that auto manufacturers provide interior latches in trunk lids so that a person could escape if locked inside.

You stated in your letter that many car hijackings, commonly called carjackings, are taking place and that in many instances, the perpetrator locks the victim in the trunk, then takes the victim to a remote place and murders him or her. You stated that an interior latch could provide the victim a means to escape.

An interior latch may or may not be effective as a means of escaping from the trunk. The agency is concerned that criminals such as carjackers, knowing that there is an interior latch in the trunk, could disable the latch, or worse, incapacitate the victim before placing him or her in the trunk. In addition, we have no data on the number of deaths or injuries attributable to intentional or inadvertent entrapment in the trunk of a car. Accordingly, we have no basis at this time to issue regulations requiring latches on the insides of trunk lids.

We will, however, continue to monitor our defect complaint files, and law enforcement data to be alert to potential problems of this nature. These are measures we normally take in our continuing efforts to improve motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful to you, and thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:5/30/97
d:5/30/97

ID: 13969.wkm

Mr. Glen L. Bobst
2910 North St. Helena Highway
St. Helena, CA 94574

Dear Mr. Bobst:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to

Mr. Stuart Seigel of this agency requesting DOT approval for your wheel safety rim. Your letter and enclosed drawings describe a metal belt that fits inside the wheel well so that "a driver can, after a blowout, continue to drive to a rest stop or service station and not be stranded on a lonely stretch of road."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. The agency enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer.

Turning now to the wheel safety rim, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the wheel safety rim is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter and its enclosed illustrations, we conclude that the wheel safety rim is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the illustrations make it clear that the wheel safety rim is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since its stated purpose is to enable motorists experiencing tire failure to continue driving until a safe place can be found to change the tire.

While the wheel safety rim is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30121 (copies enclosed)which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:7/24/97

ID: 14-001678 IMMI STAR crs

ID: 14019pad.sun

Mr. Jeff Greger
Graco Children's Products Inc.
51 S. Pine St.
P.O. Box 100
Elverson, PA 19520

Dear Mr. Greger:

This responds to your January 30, 1997, letter concerning the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as applied to a "canopy (sun visor)" on an infant restraint. You ask:

If a canopy, when folded into the "storage position," extends above the seatback surface, is it necessary for that canopy to "break away" in the event that the child's head or body strikes it during a collision? I am aware that this canopy would be required to be padded with a slow recovery energy absorbing material since protruding above the seatback would deem it a "contactable surface."

The canopy is not required to break away if struck by the dummy's head or body. If the canopy can be contacted by the dummy's head during Standard No. 213's dynamic testing, S5.2.3.2 of the standard requires it to be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:3/19/97

ID: 14054.drn

Mr. Mike Hofstätter
Steyr-Daimler-Puch
Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstraße 317
A-8041 Graz
AUSTRIA

Dear Mr. Hofstätter:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle your company is considering manufacturing may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." As explained below, we need more information to make this determination.

Please note that under NHTSA's statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety) the vehicle's manufacturer is responsible in the first instance for classifying a particular vehicle. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of an enforcement action.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Your letter informed us that you are designing a "passenger car" with dimensions similar to a Volkswagen Golf, with four side doors, one rear door, two front seats and three rear seats. Your letter further states that the vehicle has a front wheel drive, and the body "will be lifted up for 50 to 60 mm, so that the vehicle can be used for occasional off-road operation."

Based on your description, it appears that the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons (as it has five seats). Part of "multipurpose passenger vehicle's" definition is that it has "special features for occasional off-road operation." The only "special feature" you have described is the body is raised 50-60 mm. We cannot agree that raising the body 50-60 mm alone is commensurate with equipping the vehicle with special features for off-road operation.

Before determining whether your vehicle could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," we must know whether the vehicle has other special features. If your vehicle has other features for occasional off-road operation, please write to let us know what they are. After reviewing the additional information, we will be able to make an informed decision.

I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. For further information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571.3

d:4/21/97

ID: 14056dre.am

Ms. Carol Dingledy
Manager, Corporate Communications
Cosco Inc.
2525 State St.
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Ms. Dingledy:

This responds to your January 27, 1997 letter concerning the air bag warning label requirement adopted in Standard 213 by a November 27, 1996 final rule (61 FR 60206). You ask whether you can revise the label for Cosco's "Dream Ride" car bed.

The November 1996 rule requires that beginning May 27, 1997, rear-facing child seats must have a specified label "that conforms in content to Figure 10...." Figure 10, also adopted by the rule, depicts a label with the word "Warning" and an alert symbol in the heading, and a message and pictogram under that heading. The text of the message appears as:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.

DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.

You state that the Dream Ride can be used rear-facing, and side-facing as a car bed. According to the installation information you enclosed, Cosco believes that the Dream Ride "can be used as a car bed in seating locations where there is an air bag." You ask whether the standard would permit you to add a sentence at the beginning of the required text, stating:

Dream Ride can be used with an air bag in the car bed position ONLY.

You believe this sentence is needed "to make the intent crystal clear and prevent anyone from either facing the car seat forward or putting an infant who must be watched alone in the rear seat."

Our answer is that the standard does not permit the additional sentence on the label. S5.5.2(k)(4) requires a label that, among other things, "conforms in content to Figure 10." NHTSA provided flexibility in the final rule concerning the format and size of the label, but stated that "Manufacturers agreed that NHTSA should specify the label content and prohibit additional labels." 61 FR at 60210. Thus, flexibility as to the content of the label was not provided.

References to car bed use, while precluded from inclusion on the label, may be included in the installation instructions for the restraint. Please note, however, that the January 6, 1997 final rule extending the time period during which manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag are permitted (62 FR 798) expressed the following concerns about car beds:

Given the limited information that is available [on the use of car beds], NHTSA is not prepared to recommend placing a car bed in front of an air bag. The agency did conduct a test in which the air bag deployed primarily over the top of a car bed, barely contacting the bed. However, NHTSA used an infant dummy that was not instrumented, and thus did not obtain measurements of the potential for injury.* * * The agency does not know how hard the air bag impacted the bed, or what the effect the impact would have on a four, five or ten pound infant, with or without a medical problem. Moreover, the agency does not know the extent to which that particular test was representative of current vehicle seats and air bags. Finally, NHTSA notes that car beds cannot fit on bucket seats. (62 FR at 804, column 3)

We would appreciate learning the basis for your determination that the Dream Ride is safe to use side-facing in front of an air bag.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d:3/31/97

ID: 14119.drn

Ms. Jo. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra Bond Licensing Corporation
2458 I-70 Business Loop, Ste. B-1
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Ms. Campfield:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of this agency's laws that apply to your new product, EDGEGUARD, a clear material that is placed on the outer three inches or less of a windshield perimeter to prevent cracks. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you are aware from past correspondence, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for motor vehicle glazing. For windshields, Standard No. 205 specifies minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent) and light stability; resistance to abrasion, delamination (humidity and boil tests), impact and penetration; and maximum levels of optical deviation and distortion. The various tests and criteria are contained in ANSI/SAE Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretation letters that films such as the type your letter describes are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to meet Standard No. 205. However, depending on who installs the glazing, installation of such films on new motor vehicles may be prohibited if, after installation, the vehicle glazing no longer meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, such as those for light transmittance, abrasion resistance and optical distortion.

A vehicle manufacturer or dealer placing your film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle must certify that the glazing continues to meet Standard No. 205. 49 U.S.C. Section 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 205. After the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser, the owner may modify the vehicle as he or she pleases, subject to State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install your product on the vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affects the light transmittance and other properties of the vehicle's glazing. However, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

49 U.S.C. Section 30122(b) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Make inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the FMVSSs. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install your film on a vehicle for its owner if the installation would make inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violations of this section may result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

Because State law may affect the installation of your product on owners' vehicles, you should check the law in the States where you believe your product may be sold or installed for any applicable requirements.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.7/3/97