ID: 11598ELRtxt

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

Dear Mr. Cathcart:

This responds to your February 5, 1996 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that your company manufactures child restraints with emergency locking retractors (ELRs) which automatically adjust the shoulder straps to fit the child occupant. You are concerned about a provision in Standard 213 which you call the Asnug fit test procedure,@ that you believe calls for (quoting from your letter):

1. The dummy to be placed in the child safety seat and the child safety seat=s restraint fastened according to the manufacturer=s instructions. The position and fit of the belts on the dummy=s shoulders is then visually inspected to see that the shoulder straps are correctly positioned without gaps.

2. A probe is placed between the shoulder strap and the dummy=s shoulder. The shoulder strap is then pulled upward with two pounds of pressure, and again the straps are visually inspected to see that they lay properly in place and that no gaps greater than 1/4 inch exist.

You state that A[t]he application of two pounds of pressure is not enough to engage the ELR.@

You indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Office of Safety Assurance (NSA) has informed you that Athe second phase of the test is not applicable with ELR units. . . .@ That is, in your words, AIf the belts fit snugly on the child dummy=s shoulders, ELR seats have been deemed to pass the >snug fit= requirement. The seats are then move [sic] on to be dynamically tested.@ You agree that this is the correct position and request our concurrence on the matter.

We generally concur that the procedure of the second phase, applying two pounds of force using a probe, would not Aapply@ to an ELR system. However, several matters should be clarified.

There is a requirement in Standard 213 that each child restraint belt that is designed to restrain a child shall be adjustable to Asnugly fit@ any child whose height and weight are within the ranges recommended by the manufacturer for the restraint (S5.4.3.1). A visual inspection by NSA checks that this requirement is met. However, the Asnug fit test procedure@ you ask about relates to a test condition set forth in S6.1.2(e) for the sled test. This section specifies that, prior to sled testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted, while applying a two pound force using a probe, so that there is 7 millimeters (1/4 inch) of slack.

We concur that this specification of test conditions does not apply to ELR systems. At the time the test condition was adopted, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. In general, the more slack there is, the more severe the test, which may result in greater dummy excursions and a greater likelihood that a restraint may fail the performance requirements of Standard 213. To ensure that child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, S6.1.2.4 was added to Standard 213 specifying the precise amount of slack that should be present.

In a system with ELRs, the retractors remove the slack from the belts on their own. Thus, there is no need for the Asecond phase@ of the procedure to adjust the amount of slack in the belts. Moreover, since the ELRs will not be activated on application of the two pound force used in the second phase, applying the force would not serve to measure slack in the belts, but would simply spool out the webbing. Accordingly, NHTSA will not use the procedure with systems such as yours.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:4/25/96

The language of S6.1.2(e) was formerly set forth in paragraph S6.1.2.4. The text of Standard 213's test procedure was reorganized in a final rule published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), effective January 3, 1996. While S6.1.2(e) uses metric units, we use English units in this letter because your letter did so.

ID: 1160

Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer
Attorney at Law
674 Lake Road
Webster, NY 14580

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:556 d:10/20/95

ID: 11601MLV

Mr. Donald B. Karner
President
Electric Transportation Applications
P.O. Box 10303
Glendale, AZ 85318

Dear Mr. Karner:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1996, requesting additional information in response to a letter from this agency dated January 24, 1996. Your question relates to what steps a manufacturer must take to Apermanently obstruct seating positions@ if the number of designated seating positions was to be reduced. You asked for Aany findings, case law, or policy or position statements which may have been previously generated in this area.@

NHTSA does not have a general rule as to what is an acceptable Apermanent obstruction@ of a seating position. We can, however, provide you with a discussion of previous statements concerning this topic, which may provide some guidance. We will also discuss the examples you include in your letter.

Previous Statements An April 19, 1979, final rule amending the definition of Adesignated seating position@ offers some discussion of this issue (44 FR 23229, copy enclosed). In the preamble to the rule, NHTSA interpreted the portion of the Adesignated seating position@ definition concerning the presumption that a bench seat with more than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. The agency stated: Athe space occupied by a rigid console or a fixed, stationary armrest, for example, would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation.@ (44 FR 23229, 23232)

In an April 9, 1980, letter to Renault USA (copy enclosed), the agency discussed the use of seat belt assemblies to limit the number of seating positions on a bench seat. NHTSA stated:

The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so that the belts are not real impediments to the use of the center position.

Your Examples Alteration of the floor plan: You ask if altering the floor plan such that a normal seated position cannot be achieved could constitute an Aacceptable obstruction@ of a seating position. It is unclear what actions this would entail. However, in the April 1979 notice the agency stated: AThe NHTSA agrees that shoulder room, leg room, and head clearance are factors which may influence the number of persons who will use a bench or split-bench seat.@ (44 FR 23229 at 23231). Thus, in theory, alteration of the floor plan could reduce the number of designated seating positions.

Filling the seat with an empty container bolted to the frame or seat skeleton: If the design of the container was such that a person could not sit in the container on the seat, this would constitute a permanent obstruction.

Removal of the seat: This is an obvious example of a means of reducing the number of designated seating positions in a vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571.3 d:4/2/96

ID: 11606ZTV

Mr. J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Department
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and 49 CFR Part 564.

As you noted, the dimensional and specification information on HB Types of replaceable headlamp bulbs and their associated Figures were recently transferred from Standard No. 108 to Docket No. 93-11, established by Part 564. Note 2 to Figure 23-1 states that "It must be possible to insert the light source into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius s/2"

You asked whether the light shield is allowed to be located in the hatched area shown in Figure 23-1 and its note (2). You believe that the light shield may be located in the hatched area because the area is specified in order to allow room for the H4 yellow light source permitted by ECE REg. No. 37. However, there is no reason to allow room because yellow headlamps are not permitted under Standard No. 108.

Under Figure 23-1 and Note 2, no light shield may be located in the hatched area; therefore, we cannot agree with your interpretation. If Koito wishes to file a modified drawing to Docket 93-11 permitting installation of a light shield in the hatched area it may do so. However, in accordance with Sec. 564.5(d)(3) and (4), the changed drawing must be accompanied by

statements that the use of the light source as modified will not create a noncompliance with any requirement of Standard No. 108 when used to replace an unmodified light source in a headlamp certified by its manufacturer as conforming to Standard No. 108, and information demonstrating that the modification will not adversely affect interchangeability with the original light source.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/2/96

ID: 11608DRN

D. W. Goonewardene, Acting Chief Engineer
Audit & Safety Investigations Section
Federal Office of Road Safety, GPO Box 594
Department of Transport
Canberra ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Goonewardene:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Hackney of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brakes. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your questions are answered below.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

You first asked whether test procedures at S7.6.1, S7.6.3, S7.10.1, and S7.10.2 that specify stops "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" mean "an average deceleration for the stop or maintaining the deceleration throughout the test." You also asked, if the procedure is to maintain the deceleration, "what is the allowable time period from the beginning and towards the end of the test that may be excluded from the requirement that the deceleration must be within the specified range or is the approach in S7.6.2 (which requires attaining the required deceleration as quickly as possible and maintaining this deceleration for at least 3/4 of the stopping distance) used?"

We interpret the specification that stops be made "from 30 mph at 10 to 11 feet per second per second (fpsps) for each stop" as referring to maintaining the deceleration within that range throughout the stop, i.e., not as an average. The approach in S7.6.2, which is for higher speed/higher deceleration stops, does not apply to these other sections. As a practical matter, of course, there is a momentary period of time needed at the beginning of the stops to attain the specified deceleration, and possibly a momentary period at the very end of the stops that will be outside the specified range.

You also asked, "if some variation from the specified deceleration occurs, are there any conditions placed on when the maximum pedal/lever forces should be measured (e.g., only when the deceleration is within the specified limits)?" As indicated above, the specified deceleration should be maintained throughout each stop. We would look at the entire stop to determine maximum pedal/lever forces.

I am enclosing for your information a copy our Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 122, prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The purpose and application of the procedure is explained at the beginning of the document.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further legal questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366- 3820. If you have technical questions, including ones about the enclosed Laboratory Test Procedure, please contact Luke Loy of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5308 (FAX (202) 366-1024).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:122 d:4/24/96

ID: 11609.df

James L. Miraldi, Esq.
Miraldi & Barrett Co., L.P.A.
6061 South Broadway
Lorain, Ohio 44053

Dear Mr. Miraldi:

This responds to your letter concerning paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. I regret the delay in replying.

S4.4 provides that:

Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

You ask whether that section requires the placement of a label on a rear bench seat in a conversion van which folds out into a bed. NHTSA has interpreted the requirement to apply only to positions that are not designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Presuming that the bench seat is a "designated seating position" under 49 CFR 571.3, a label is not required for the seat. I have enclosed a January 4, 1996, letter to Erika Z. Jones on this subject. We note that the bench seat in its unconverted mode must comply with all requirements for a "designated seating position," and would have to be equipped with seat belts.

The label is not required for the position in the "bed" mode because S4.4 applies to "seats." An "occupant seat" is defined in S3 of Standard 207 as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." (Emphasis added.) Given the clear reference to "seat" in S4.4, we cannot interpret the labeling requirement to apply to a bed.

In answer to your general inquiry about our interpretations, this office regularly responds to requests for interpretations of the safety standards. All of our interpretations are on file in the agency's public docket and are available for public inspection. The telephone number for our Docket Room is (202) 366-4949. In addition, interpretations that have been issued from 1988 to the present are now available on the Internet. I have enclosed information on how you can search these letters.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:207

d:8/12/96

ID: 11610ZTV

Mr. Randy I. McClanahan
2323 Augusta, #5
Houston, Texas 77057

Dear Mr. McClanahan:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1996, on the subject "Deceleration Rate Signal Generator to Control the Operation of the Center High Mounted Brake Light of Vehicles."

Citing paragraph S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which requires hazard warning signal lamps to be wired to flash, you believe that "the center high mounted brake light, when controlled by our Brake Alert deceleration rate signal generator, is in fact a `hazard signal lamp'". In your opinion, "the installation of our Brake Alert does not alter the factory-installed center high mounted brake light fixture or the bulb(s) therein", and, therefore "not in violation of any Federal Regulations."

I am sorry to have to tell you that your Brake Alert device is not permitted under Federal regulations. The hazard warning signal lamps covered in S5.5.10(a) refer to a vehicle's four turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously. Brake Alert, by causing the center high-mounted stop lamp to flash, would not change the center lamp into a "hazard warning lamp" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. When activated by Brake Alert the center lamp would simply be a flashing stop lamp. Under S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108, stop lamps must be steady burning. This means that Brake Alert could not be installed as original equipment on a vehicle.

With respect to the aftermarket, Federal law prohibits modifications by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that "make inoperative"

Federally-required equipment, such as the center stop lamp. We regard causing the center lamp to flash as the equivalent of making it inoperative because it will be operating in a way that is not permitted for new vehicle equipment under Standard No. 108. Federal law, however, does not prohibit the vehicle's owner from adding Brake Alert if (s)he is capable of doing so. Even if installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of Brake Alert would be determinable under the laws of the states where it is operated. If you would like to know whether state laws would permit the use of Brake Alert, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier agency interpretation on the use of the center lamp as a flashing deceleration warning device (see page 2 of letter of June 3, 1990 to Norman H. Dankert).

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

Sincerely,

Samuel H. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/2/96

ID: 11613WKM

Mr. Harold J. Herzlich
Herzlich Consulting, Inc.
8908 Desert Mound Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134

Dear Mr. Herzlich:

This responds to your letter dated February 5, 1996 in which you asked this agency to reverse its denial of your petition of June 13, 1995. You had suggested in your petition that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should amend the tire standards to require the Awearout indicators,@ currently required on tires, to be 3/32 inch, rather than the current requirement of 2/32 inch.

You state in your letter that NHTSA incorrectly paraphrased some of the justifications you provided in your petition to support the suggested amendments. You also state your belief that NHTSA=s denial of your petition was based on possibly obsolete 1967-1975 data, and that a public hearing is therefore necessary to develop the data pertinent to your proposal. Finally, you asked that your petition letter "be attached to any notice of action so the record will show the exact context of [your] comments."

The agency thoroughly evaluated your petition and discussed our rationale for denying it in the document published in the Federal Register on January 30, 1996 (denial of petition for rulemaking, 61 FR 2991). We continue to believe that our understanding and summary of the statements in your petition were accurate and that our stated rationale for the denial of your petition was based on relevant data. You provided no new information or data in your letter to supplement the assertions in your petition. Accordingly, the agency does not see reason to revisit the issues raised in your petition.

As you requested, a copy of your petition of June 13, 1995 will be attached to copies of your letter and of this response, for inclusion in the agency's public docket.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:4/16/96

ID: 11615JEG

Mr. Larry Clarke
4514 Fetke L
Rhinelander, WI 54501

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Senator Kohl asked me to respond to your question asking whether there is a law that stipulates that cars with air bags must have the air bags put back in after an accident. As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection@ (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. ' 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of an owner or repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you or a repair facility need guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Stephen P. Wood, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

cc: The Honorable Herb Kohl ref:208

ID: 11615ZTV

Mr. Jerry Jones
341 Jean Street
Mill Valley
CA 94941

Dear Mr. Jones:

We have received your letter of February 20, 1996, with respect to a motorcycle headlamp system that you are developing. Under your system, the headlamp is rotated about the beam axis and in a direction opposite and equal to the banking angle of the motorcycle when it is in a curve.

In its simplest form, a 5-inch motorcycle headlamp is used. A variant allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis. A third form "uses multiple miniature quartz reflector lamps commonly used for slide projectors and display lighting." You are interested in learning "how this device could comply with current federal regulations."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to motorcycle headlighting systems is 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment . Table III of this standard directly incorporates SAE Recommended Practice J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960 , and applies it to motorcycle headlamps. It requires that "headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that . . . (3) When the headlamps are secured, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service." From your description, it would appear that aim would not be disturbed as your simplest design only rotates the lamp around the beam axis, thus permitting this design. However, the design that allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis would disturb horizontal aim within the prohibition of the SAE language quoted above.

In addition, motorcycle headlamps must comply with the specifications of Standard No. 108, none of which permit a lamp of the nature of your third variant.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/16/96