ID: 21066.ztv

Mr. Jay C. Ackerman
Vice President - Operations
G & C, Inc.
500 W. Southgate
Enid, OK 73701

Dear Mr. Ackerman:

This is in response to your e-mail of December 10, 1999, to Steve Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking.

You describe a parking brake system you wish to install on a low-speed vehicle that you intend to manufacture, and have asked whether the system is allowable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles.

At the present time, Standard No. 500 simply requires a low-speed vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake (S5(b)(7)). We have adopted no performance specifications for a parking brake on a low-speed vehicle. We define "parking brake" as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle" (Sec. 571.3(b)). Therefore, any device or mechanism installed on a low-speed vehicle that performs the function stated in the definition would be acceptable as a parking brake.

If we decide that specific parking brake performance requirements should be adopted for low-speed vehicles, we will first publish a notice of a proposed rule so that you and other interested persons may comment on it. We anticipate that parking brake performance requirements for low-speed vehicles would be similar to those specified in Standards Nos. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, and 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, for faster motor vehicles. These standards specify a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement. Your hydraulic-type parking brake system would not be acceptable if we propose and adopt the same type of parking-brake specification for low-speed vehicles. We do not favor hydraulic-type parking brake systems because, if a leak in the system caused the pressure to drop, the vehicle could roll away. This would not necessarily be prevented by your additional feature that will disengage the electrical drive system when the line-lock system is engaged.

Because it appears that G&C is a new manufacturer of motor vehicles, I enclose an information package that we provide, explaining our laws and regulations. We particularly call your attention to Part 565, Vehicle Information Number Requirements, and Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:500
d.3/15/2000

ID: 21067.ztv

John F. Letchford, Esq.
Dilworth Paxson LLP
3200 Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7595

Dear Mr. Letchford:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1999, with respect to whether "a device that causes the backup lamps to steadily burn for a few seconds upon actuation of the horn would violate" 49 CFR 571.108 ( Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108).

Specifically, the device would cause the upper beam of a vehicle's headlamps to flash and "backup lights to illuminate and burn steadily" for three seconds or less, when the vehicle's horn is sounded. The purpose of the device is to provide a visual warning to others in front of or behind a vehicle of a potential danger or threat requiring an audible warning, i.e, use of the horn. You have cited S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 which permits headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, but you are concerned with S5.5.10(d) that requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning.

S4 of Standard No. 108 defines "flash" as a "cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means . . . ." We would not regard a backup lamp that illuminated steadily for three seconds or less to be a lamp that is not steady burning within the meaning of S5.5.10(d), or flashing, within the definition of S4. However, the determinative question is whether a backup lamp can be used for purposes other than to indicate a reverse movement of the vehicle. The answer is no. See SAE Standard J593c, Backup Lamps, February 1968, which Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 incorporate by reference (copy enclosed). Paragraph 2 of Installation Requirements states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion." It is clear that the device you discuss is intended to be used under normal operating conditions of the vehicle on the public roads, and that its installation would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety and regret that we cannot provide the letter you requested.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/30/2000

ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: 21069.ogm

Mr. Mac Yousry
Global Vehicle Services, Corp.
1238 West Grove Avenue
Orange, CA 92865

Dear Mr. Yousry:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle that is capable of operating on water as well as land may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please note that under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (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" (MPV) 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 indicates that the vehicle in question is intended to be used on the water forty to sixty percent of the time. You ask if a vehicle which is intended primarily to operate on public highways but also has the capability to operate on water, has special features for occasional off-road operation.

It is not clear from your description if the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons or is constructed on a truck chassis. As your inquiry requests the agency's view on whether the vehicle may be properly said to be capable of occasional off-road operation, we will assume that it is not built on a truck chassis and is designed to carry 10 persons or fewer.

Part of the "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition is that the subject vehicle has "special features for occasional off-road operation." We note that you describe the vehicle as "amphibious," i.e., having the capability to operate independently on land and in the water. The amphibious capability of such a vehicle indicates that it would possess special features for off-road operation. Therefore, based on the information you have provided, it appears that the vehicle in question would, for the purpose of classifying the vehicle for application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

For further information, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.571
d.2/11/2000

ID: 2106y

Mr. John K. Moody
Moody & Moody Enterprises
1027 Lochmont Drive
Brandon, FL 33511

Dear Mr. Moody:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, l989, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your forward direction brake application indicator.

The device will be available as an aftermarket kit. The two front turn signal lamps are wired to be activated in a steady-burning mode when the brake pedal is depressed. If the turn signals are activated when the brake pedal is depressed, the lamp indicating the direction of the turn will switch from the steady-burning mode to the turn signal mode, while the other turn signal lamp remains steady-burning. This will provide an indication at the front of a motor vehicle as to whether or not the driver is attempting to apply the brakes. You have asked whether vehicles equipped with the device would be in conflict with the existing vehicle lighting standards of this agency.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to aftermarket lighting equipment of the nature that you describe. However, installation of the device would involve modifications to a vehicle certified as meeting the Federal standards, most particularly Standard No. l08, the vehicle lighting standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle owner may alter his vehicle with impunity; however, modifications to certified vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to the restriction that they not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

We have two comments on your device. The first is that you have not described its effect, if any, on the hazard warning system. This system operates through the turn signal lamps, and is activated by a switch that is separate from the turn signal switch. When activated, the hazard warning switch causes the front and rear turn signal lamps to flash. The front turn signal lamps in the hazard warning system, when activated, must flash, even when the brake pedal is applied. If they do not do so when your device is installed, they would be "inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. Our second comment concerns the fact that in the turn signal mode the unused turn signal lamp would continue to be illuminated when the brake pedal is applied. Thus, an observer would see a flashing turn signal and a steady burning one, whereas with an ordinary vehicle, the observer would see only the flashing turn signal. Whether the presence of the steady burning turn signal on the side of the vehicle opposite the flashing turn signal would detract from the effectiveness of the flashing turn signal, and by obscuring its message make it "partially inoperative", is difficult to judge. Certainly, when a vehicle is signaling a turn, it does not appear necessary to also indicate, to the front, that it is stopping.

These remarks also serve as some comments of this Office as to "safety benefits" that might result from vehicles equipped with your device. Certainly, no standard lighting equipment on vehicles today indicate from the front that the brake pedal is being applied. This is an interesting concept, and we appreciate your interest in enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/l/89

ID: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: 24421safeline_LATCH_buckle

Mr. Keith Poulson
Vice President of Product Development
Safeline Kids, Inc.
475 W. 115^th Avenue, Suite 3
Northglenn, CO 80234

Dear Mr. Poulson:




This responds to your letter and follow-up e-mail asking about a design concept for components on a child restraint that attach to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle.The components are required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (S5.9) for child restraints manufactured on or after September 1, 2002.The child restraint anchorage system, which you refer to as the LATCH system, is required to be installed in vehicles by Standard No. 225. [1]You ask if the concept you have developed would meet our requirements.With certain caveats, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation.If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product.It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements.NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

You explain that your letter concerns the Sit' n 'Stroll, which converts from a child restraint to a stroller.You have designed LATCH attachments for the restraint system keeping in mind that the Sit' n 'Stroll will be removed from the vehicle several times a day for use as a stroller.You state:

As standard equipment on each product the Sit' n 'Stroll would have permanently attached to the seat shell, a snap hook and also a quick release buckle latch clip.Both are permanently attached to the product on the same piece of webbing [2]

As an option, a consumer could then purchase as an accessory a buckle(s) with a snap hook attached to it, that could be secured to the anchor point in the vehicle seat, allowing the consumer to quickly release the Sit' n 'Stroll from the vehicle seat using the buckle.The buckle will remain secured to the anchor point in the vehicle using the snap hook, but can be easily removed should the consumer decide to transfer the Sit' n 'Stroll and this accessory to a different vehicle. [3]

Discussion

S5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems of the type you manufacture to have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a LATCH system.Your child restraint would have snap hooks permanently attached to the child restraint that enable the restraint to fasten to the lower LATCH anchorages.As such, the restraint provides the components required by S5.9(a).The standard does not prohibit a child restraint from having other components attached to it.However, the other components must not make inoperative the LATCH snap hooks that are installed in compliance with Standard No. 213.Further, under S5.6.1, each child restraint system that has components for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system must include a step-by-step procedure for properly attaching to that anchorage system.This means that the installation instructions you provide must include instructions for properly attaching the buckle with snap hook to the LATCH anchorage system.In addition, child restraint systems are tested to Standard No. 213's performance requirements when attached to a LATCH anchorage system "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1."(S6.1.2(1)(i)(C)).Thus, your child restraint must meet the standard's performance requirements when attached by the buckle with snap hook component.

Note also that S5.9(d) specifies an additional requirement for child restraint systems other than systems with hooks for attaching to the lower LATCH anchorages.Such systems must provide an indication when each attachment to the lower anchorages becomes fully latched or attached.Because the "buckle Latch (sic) clip" is a part of your system, the child restraint must meet S5.9(d).We consider an audible "click" of the buckle LATCH clip connecting to the "quick release buckle" as satisfying S5.9(d).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/8/02





---




[1] "LATCH" is a term used by industry and retail groups referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225.LATCH stands for "lower anchorages and tethers for children." For convenience, we will use the term in this letter.

[2] The snap hook and buckle latch clip are shown in the attachment as "A."(Footnote added.)

[3]

The buckle(s) with a snap hook are shown in the attachment as "B."(Footnote added.)

ID: 24423-2

Alvaro Ughini Junior
Marcopolo SA
Unidade Ana Rech
Av. Rio Branco, 4889
Caixa Postal 238
95060-650 Caxias do Sul - RS / Brazil

Dear Mr. Ughini:

This responds to your e-mail of May 10, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Vehicle manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. The standards specify the procedures NHTSA would use in compliance testing. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise reasonable care in certifying that their products meet applicable standards. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "reasonable care" might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, it might be possible to show "reasonable care" using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

Standard No. 302, like other standards, specifies the procedure NHTSA would use in compliance testing. The agency may test any material subject to Standard No. 302 in any way specified by the standard.

If NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the agency asks the manufacturer to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or item of equipment complies with Standard No. 302. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem, without charge.

In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with Standard No. 302. Please note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to discontinue sales of vehicles or notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I will now address your specific questions.

Complex Surfaces

You asked:

Should the test specimen be made by cutting the component itself in the dimensions required? If so, how can we proceed when dealing with a complex surface or "amorphous" solid, since the test specimen must be as flat as possible?

The test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the specified dimensions. S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302 specifies: "The specimen is produced by cutting the material in the direction that provides the most adverse test results." S5.2.1 specifies that the test specimen be 102 mm wide by 356 mm long by 13 mm thick, wherever possible. S5.2.1 also specifies: "Where it is not possible to obtain a flat specimen because of surface curvature, the specimen is cut to not more than 13 mm in thickness at any point." Thus, when dealing with a "complex" surface, the specimen is cut, wherever possible, so that it is 102 mm wide, 356 mm long, and not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Rubber, PVC, and PS Profiles

You asked:

When dealing with rubber, PVC and PS profiles, how is the test specimen supposed to be made? If it is simply cutted (sic), in what position shall it be installed in the test equipment? If we must extrude a flat sample, what thickness should we consider, since the profile has a variable thickness along the transversal section?

As noted above, the test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the required dimensions, wherever possible. The test specimen is then installed in the metal test cabinet according to the conditions and procedures specified in S5.1 through S5.3 of Standard No. 302. S5.1.3 specifies that the test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 25 mm wide and 10 mm high. S5.3(a) specifies that the test specimen is mounted so that both sides and one end are held up by the U-shaped frame, and one end is even with the open end of the frame. S5.3(b) specifies that the mounted test specimen is placed in a horizontal position, in the center of the test cabinet.

As noted above, if the material being tested has a variable thickness, the test specimen is cut so that it is not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Same Material/Different Thickness and/or Same Material/Different Colors

You asked:

In the case where we work with many flat (or almost flat) covers extruded from the same ABS resin but with different thickness, may we test the lower thick sample only?

You also asked:

Must we consider that components made from the same raw-material but with different colors (pigmented resin not painted) need tests for each color, or can we test any one of the colors to certify that the resin complies with the requirements so this result will be applicable to every colors (sic).

As noted above, NHTSA may test in any way specified by Standard No. 302. The agency may test any sample of your flat covers that are extruded from ABS resin and/or any different colors of the same material.

I note that the agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. Thus, we cannot provide an opinion of the number or types of tests that you would need to conduct to ensure that you exercised reasonable care in certifying that your product complies with Standard No. 302. What constitutes reasonable care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Standard No. 302, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Ref:302
d.6/24/02

ID: 24439Suzuki_tether_anchor_zone

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
P.O. Box 1100
Brea, CA92822-1100

Dear Mr. Bush:




This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).I regret the delay in responding.You ask whether a certain user-ready tether anchorage location would meet the location requirements of S6.2.1 of the standard. Our answer is yes.

S6.2.1 of Standard No. 225 states: " the part of each tether anchorage that attaches to a tether hook must be located within the shaded zone shown in Figures 3 to 7 of this standard."Figure 3 shows the front edge of the zone as extending along the torso line reference plane under the seat and then following the contour of the vehicle seat bottom and seat back up to a point on the seat back.You ask about locating an anchorage in a recessed area of the seat back.You do not believe that the standard intended to disallow locating the tether anchorage in that area.

With one exception, a recessed area in the seat back is acceptable for locating the tether anchorage. Figures 3 to 7 do not provide dimensions as to the location of the front edge of the shaded zone, except with regard to the "strap wrap-around area" at the top of a vehicle seat back.The agency did not intend to exclude part of the seat back from the shaded zone; thus, a tether anchorage that is recessed in the seat back is permitted.However, the shaded zone does not include the strap wrap-around area at the top of the vehicle seat back.Thus, the anchorage must not be located in that wrap-around area. We will be issuing a technical amendment to include in the shaded zone the part of the seat back that is below the strap wrap-around area.

You also ask for confirmation that, for the area under the vehicle seat, the forwardmost edge of the shaded zone is defined by the torso line reference plane.Your understanding is correct.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.11/8/02

ID: 244424aogm

Mr. Martin Krenn
Concept Technologic GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria




Dear Mr. Krenn:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to Ms. Karen Nuschler regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is developing a motorhome. The development of this vehicle has raised questions regarding the location of targets and target zones and test procedures under Standard No. 201.

Under the provisions of Standard No. 201, vehicles must meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. The targets are located by a mapping procedure found in the Standard. Once a target point is located, a 12.7 mm target circle centered on the target point serves as the test target. Any part of that target circle may be struck by the headform during a test.

Your first question relates to the proper procedure for locating targets on the upper roof. The head protection requirements of Standard No. 201 require manufacturers to meet performance requirements only at those targets that are located using the procedures found in S10 of the standard. In the case of the upper roof, S10.9 specifies that the upper roof target (target UR) may be located anywhere within the upper roof zone. Therefore, once the boundaries of the upper roof zone are established as set forth in the standard, UR may be located at any point within those boundaries. Your message contains a photograph of the interior of a vehicle. Referring to the photograph, you ask if a point on an area of the vehicle depicted in the photo represents the proper location of the transverse vertical plane described in S8.15(b).

The boundaries of the upper roof are located through use of the procedures set forth in S8.15(a) through (h). S8.15(b) directs that a transverse vertical plane, plane B, be located at the rearmost point where it contacts the interior roof (including trim) at the vehicle centerline. Once located, plane B serves as the rearmost boundary of the upper roof. The photograph incorporated into your electronic mail message depicts what appears to be the cab area of a motorhome and shows the passenger side B-pillar and what appears to be the rear of the front outboard passenger seat. The photograph also depicts that the interior roof of the vehicle is comprised of at least two sections. The first section is located over the driver and front passenger seat and continues from the front header to the rear edge of the B-Pillar. This section meets a transverse vertical panel that extends upward until it contacts the remainder of the roof, which then continues to the rear of the vehicle. A drawing of the vehicle also embedded in your message indicates that this front section of the interior roof also serves as the floor of a storage compartment that is enclosed on the sides and top by the raised exterior roof of the vehicle.

A notation and arrow on the photograph point to an area on the rearmost section of the interior roof segment located over the driver and passenger seats. You ask if this point is the proper location for plane B under S8.15(b). The answer is no. The area depicted in your photograph is not located at the rearmost point where a the transverse plane "B" contacts the interior roof. The photographs and drawings in your email message indicate that the point you have marked is located at what appears to be the rearmost point of a section of the interior roof. However, the interior roof of the vehicle does not terminate at this point. Although the interior roof is bisected by a transverse vertical section that serves as the door for an overhead storage compartment, the interior roof extends rearward from the aft edge of this door to the rear of the vehicle. For the purposes of defining the upper roof under S8.15(b), the entire interior roof, not just the rearmost point of a discontinuity in the interior roof, must be considered when locating plane B.

It should be noted, however, that because the vehicle in question is a motorhome, the range of potential targets within the upper roof is restricted by S6.3(c). S6.3(c) provides that the performance requirements found in S6.1 and S6.2 do not apply to any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating position in an ambulance or a motor home. As the vehicle described in your message appears to be a motorhome for the purposes of Standard No. 201, it must only comply with the performance requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 for those targets located forward of the transverse vertical plane located less than 600 mm to the rear of the seating reference point.

Your message also indicates your concern about the location of the side rail target known as SR3 within your vehicle. You correctly observe that the procedure for locating this target is set forth in S10.7 of Standard No. 201. However, you note that if you follow this procedure to locate the target in your companys product, the particular configuration of the roof results in the SR3 target being located well above the actual side rail. As indicated by the photographs incorporated in your message, the use of the procedure in S10.7 results in the target being located some distance above the side rail. You further indicate that these target locations are so high in the vehicle that it is unlikely that they would even be struck by a standing person in the event of a crash. As it appears unlikely that an occupant might strike this target location, you ask what procedure the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow in locating and testing this target.

When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with the procedures and requirements found in the applicable standard. In the case of the vehicle depicted in your electronic mail message, or a similar vehicle, the agency would perform testing using the target location dictated by S10.7.

Your last question regards the proper procedure for determining the proper vertical approach angles for testing. Your message notes that the procedure for determining the maximum vertical approach angle is found in S8.13.4.2 of Standard No. 201. You ask what the proper procedure would be in a case where a target was relocated to a point where rotation of the free motion headform (FMH) in accordance with S8.12.4.2(a) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle. In such a case, you ask if the target must be relocated again or if the test should be performed without rotating the FMH downward by 5 degrees as set forth in S8.12.4.2(b)(1).

S8.13.4 specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching a particular type of target. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area. S8.13.4.2(b) directs that one step in determining the maximum vertical approach angle is to rotate the FMH while keeping the forehead impact zone in contact with the target until the lowerportion of the FMH contacts the vehicle. Once this angle is derived, S8.13.4.2(b)(1) and S8.13.4.2(b)(2) direct that the maximum vertical approach angle is the angle that results from rotating the FMH downward by either 5 or 10 degrees from the angle found by following S8.13.4.2(b).

In a case where the configuration of the vehicle is such that the rotation of the FMH specified in S8.12.4.2(b) does not result in any contact between the lower portion of the FMH and the vehicle, the FMH should be rotated upward until the forehead impact zone is no longer in contact with any part of the target. For the purposes of S8.12.4.2(b), NHTSA considers the angle at which the forehead impact zone loses contact with any part of the target to be equivalent to the angle found when the FMH can no longer be physically rotated upward. If a target is located above a window opening or is otherwise located where there is no vehicle structure to impede upward rotation, the lack of an impediment to this upward rotation should not, in NHTSAs view, require relocation of an otherwise valid target.

As your company is apparently in the process of developing a motorhome, you should be aware that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) filed a petition for rulemaking on October 4, 2001, requesting that the agency modify Standard No. 201 to exclude conversion vans and motor homes with gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, from the application of the upper interior head protection requirements of the Standard. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) filed a petition for rulemaking on November 27, 2001, seeking similar relief for multi-stage vehicles. Both petitions requested that NHTSA extend the existing phase-in for manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles from September 1, 2002, to March 1, 2004. By letters dated March 28 and April 5, 2002, NHTSA indicated it was granting the petitions. The agency is currently embarking on a rulemaking proceeding to address the issues raised in the petitions and anticipates issuing a notice regarding its response to the petitions in the near future. In the interim, the agency published a notice in the Federal Register on June 18, 2002, (67 FR 41348) providing final stage manufacturers and alterers with an additional year to comply with the upper interior head protection requirements.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263 or by electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.8/22/02