ID: 2871o

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"; literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not "count" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#585 d:5/9/88

ID: 2872o

Mr. Dan Moore
Engineer - Car Design
Busch Transportation Services
5901 State Route 15
Belleville, IL 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require actual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appears that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under 568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in 567.5, Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under 568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its vehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components; 2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard; or 3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567#568 d:5/l3/88

ID: 2874o

Mr. Donald Friedman
President
Liability Research, Inc.
4448 Via Esperanza
Santa Barbara, CA 93110

Dear Mr. Friedman:

This is a response to your letter dated November 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system "Cradle Safe," and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call "Premie Cradle," and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs.

Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows:

"In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant.

The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed."

You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because "the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obvious." To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn.

On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your "Premie Cradle" product.

By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a "modified" Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 213. You state further that a restraint system you call "One-ride" also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the "One-ride" restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the April 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency; a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy; and submissions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products.

As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dummy), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an "unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in (Standard 213) testing." You explained that the "belt" to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment.

I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials because they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 pounds (infant restraints).

Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies "no complete...and no partial separation" of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4" thickness which in deforming, tear slightly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant.

Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as one of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.)

To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely; and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance.

Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. The system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16" woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compression-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam.

Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be "covered" with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable "covering" if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding.

The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the material's compression-deflection performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213.

You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifying a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified "long-established static tests" of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requirements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2.

The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three procedures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Standard 213.

Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles.

Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 "Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system..." is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in testing, need not conform to this paragraph.

Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the "belt" to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child restraint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any belt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly.

In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended for use in restraining a child.

Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 lb. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed "travel crib" category and does not require dynamic testing.

Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended "for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds.") That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17.4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specified 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems.

The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluation of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child restraint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978; 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulemaking process.

Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.)

While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard. Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum.

Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grants your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:7/8/88

ID: 2874yy

William F. Canever, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48l2l

Dear Mr. Canever:

This responds to your letter concerning Ford's plan to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985.

In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that "(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years." Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term "class" is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits.

We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term "class of light trucks" is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned "whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter." The term "class" in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other.

While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible.

Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking.

For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits.

Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:535#502 d:3/l4/9l

ID: 2875yy

Loren Thomson, Esq.
Thomson & Weintraub
105 North Center Street
P.O. Box 3577
Bloomington, IL 61702-3577

Dear Mr. Thomson:

This responds to your letter to Dorothy Nakama of my staff in which you asked for an explanation of the responsibilities of installers and repairers of motor vehicle glazing. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you asked that we provide a response to the following two questions:

1) Would it be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield, an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205?

2) What would be the consequences if an installer knowingly installed in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205?

Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the safety standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, sell, or introduce into interstate commerce any new vehicle or new replacement window that does not conform with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies to the motor vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale to a consumer, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

Your first question asked whether it would be a violation of Federal law if, after fixing a broken or cracked windshield (by repairing instead of replacing it), an aftermarket business still did not make the windshield comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. The answer depends upon whether or not the vehicle with the broken or cracked windshield has already been sold to a consumer.

If the vehicle has not yet been sold to a consumer, the "aftermarket business" would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act if the vehicle with the repaired or replaced windshield did not comply with Standard No. 205 in all respects. As noted above, that section of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, importing, or introducing into interstate commerce any new vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 205. Thus, even if a windshield is broken while a vehicle is being delivered from the factory to a new car dealer, the windshield that is in the new vehicle when it is delivered to the first purchaser must meet all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act. I have enclosed a September 3, l98l letter to the National Glass Dealers Association explaining that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. Upon reconsideration, we reaffirm this interpretation.

Your second question asked about the consequences of an installer knowingly installing in a motor vehicle new glazing that did not comply with Standard No. 205. This would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, because the installer would be introducing into interstate commerce an item of motor vehicle equipment (the windshield) that did not comply with the applicable safety standard. By so doing, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each time it installed a noncomplying windshield, per section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:205#VSA d:3/l4/9l

ID: 2876o

Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien
Chairman of the Board
ITD Industries, Inc.
2544 Terminal Drive South
St. Petersburg, FL 33712

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988, and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is "legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance.." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles.

I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:205 d:7/11/88

ID: 2876yy

Mr. Delbert N. Pier
Legislation and Compliance Coordinator
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Pier:

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, l99l, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

With respect to a contemplated headlamp design using a standardized replaceable light source, you have asked "whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees", and have informed us that this will not change the "constants . . . or the relationship of the terminals to the constants."

Standard No. 108 does not specify the orientation of replaceable light sources in headlamps; the socket in the reflector may be in any orientation. In the configuration you present, for the bulb assembly, the terminals appear to remain perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees as required in Figure 3-3. The rotation of the socket (in the reflector) of Figure 3-7, is not regulated and, therefore, is acceptable under Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/l4/9l

ID: 2878o

Mr. Michael Rose
Technical Secretary for Executive Director
Jamaica Bureau of Standards
6 Winchester Road
Kingston l0
JAMAICA

Dear Mr. Rose:

This responds to your letter, addressed to the Director of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term "motor vehicle safety standard" is defined by the Act as "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria" (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise "due care" to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section l08(b)(l)).

I will address your first two questions together. The questions are:

l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned?

2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing.

As indicated above, Standard No. l09 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements.

The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. l09 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test.

Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. l09. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. l09 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. l09.

Your third question is as follows:

3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity?

NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:7/11/88

ID: 2879o

Robin C. Gelburd, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1193

Dear Ms. Gelburd:

This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle.

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "accessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

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

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#213 d:5/31/88

ID: 2880o

Lisa Cappalli, Esquire
Gager, Henry & Narkis
One Exchange Place
P.O. Box 2480
Waterbury, CT 06722-1791

Dear Ms. Cappalli:

This is a response to your letter of last year to Ms. Tilghman of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether your client may proceed with the manufacture and distribution of a warning device, which you described further as an equilateral triangle with legs of 10 3/8 inches each. You also enclosed a diagram of the proposed device.

Let me begin by explaining that your client does not need approval from this agency to manufacture or distribute this product. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); Safety Act) provides that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, must certify that this product complies with all applicable standards. This agency has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product.

The warning device your client plans to produce is motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, the question is whether this warning device complies with applicable safety standards.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 reads as follows: "This standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." Since your client's product falls within this description, your client must certify that the product complies with all requirements of Standard 125. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires your client to exercise "due care" in making any such certification.

Based on the description in your letter, it does not appear that your client can certify that this device complies with one of the requirements in Standard 125. Paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125 states that, "Each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall be not less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 and not more than 3 inches wide." According to your description, the sides of your client's proposed device would be only 10 3/8 inches long. Your client will have to increase the length of the sides in order to certify that this proposed warning device complies with Standard 125. We do not have enough information to offer any opinions as to whether this product appears to comply with the other requirements of Standard 125.

You asked for information on how your client could obtain an exemption from Standard 125 if necessary. There is no provision in the Safety Act for exempting items of motor vehicle equipment from any applicable safety standard. However, section 157 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) gives this agency the authority to exempt equipment manufacturers from the requirement to give notice to owners and to remedy noncompliances with applicable standards, if the agency determines that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The procedures for implementing this statutory authority are set forth in 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.

Since your client plans to become a manufacturer subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, I am enclosing a copy of a general information sheet that briefly outlines the new manufacturer's responsibilities and explains how to get copies of relevant regulations. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:125 d:7/18/88