ID: nht90-2.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Our File No.: CAIN 8877 Automotive Warning and Brake Light Arrangement

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Helfgott (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, had previously submitted an inquiry and received a response from your office on March 30, 1989. Their previous inquiry related to the use o f an amber lamp adjacent to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in a separate housing and wholly independent thereof, which would be activated when the ignition is turned on and deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated.

My client is presently interested in the possibility of providing an "amber triangular array" on the rear of the car comprising the amber center high-mounted lamp of the previous inquiry in conjunction with the existing amber directional signals. This " amber triangle" would be present both day and night, and would turn on when the ignition is turned on and would be deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated. A driver looking ahead to a leading vehicle would, therefore, always see an "amber triang ular array" until the brake lights are put on whereupon he then sees a "red triangular array". Enclosed is a single sheet effectively describing this concept.

We believe that this "amber triangular array" would have numerous benefits. Firstly, the amber color is already associated with a "warning" situation and, accordingly, trailing drivers seeing the "amber triangle" would be in a state of warning and would react more positively to the sudden turning on of the red triangle during a braking condition.

Secondly, the present existence of the constant red lights on the back of the vehicle which intensifies upon application of brakes, is more confusing than a situation where a color change occurs between non-braking and braking.

Thirdly, we believe that the amber light is a more suited color for continuous illumination. Specifically, a far-sighted driver would see a green light clearest while a near-sighted driver would see a red light clearest. The amber light is less effecte d by the driver's retroactive error than either red or green.

Fourthly, amber is preferable because of the chromeostereopsis effect. (The perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses). For about half the population, green will be seen closer than amber, while for the remainder of the population, green will be seen farther away. Since the average

illumination at night is yellowish, an amber light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distant judgement by any part of the driving population, whereas green, or other colors, could be subject to significant error in judgement of distance.

I believe that in order for us to determine the possibility of utilizing the "amber triangle" a number of areas must be addressed, and I would appreciate your addressing each of these:

1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles.

2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps.

3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

4. The possibility of utilizing the "amber triangular array" as described above.

In addition to any advisory opinion that you may be able to provide for us, if there is any technical information that your technical staff may have available in connection with this inquiry, we would appreciate your sending it to us. At the same time, should your technical staff not have yet considered the possibility of the "amber triangle" as described above, or the use of daytime running lights on the rear of a vehicle, perhaps you can forward this letter to them for their consideration of these as pects.

I do look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

ID: nht90-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- PRESIDENT, EXECULINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-2-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH ATTACHED; (OCC-3790) TEXT:

This is in response to your letter requesting that I reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40 percent of the required emergency e xit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus.

Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the F ederal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a co mpletely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and ma rkings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word "side" is not necessarily the same f or those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word "side" has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393.

Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, thes e standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers.

This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items

of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Howe ver, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to ap ply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-2.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Terry Rowe -- President, Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Terry Rowe (A37; VSA 114, Part 567)

TEXT:

I would like an opinion letter from your office as to the status of our activities here at Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc. The information contained in 49 CFR 567 "Certification" is a little vague as to whether we are vehicle alters or not.

I have enclosed a copy of the different upfitting packages that we do for your consideration.

Thank you for your time, if you need any further information please call me at 1-800-552-9127. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

ID: nht90-2.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ron Marion (A37; VSA 102(14) Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter

TEXT:

This letter is in reference to a recent telephone conversation between Mr. Morris Adams of Thomas Built Buses and Ms. Dee Fujita of your office.

We at Thomas Built Buses would like to request a ruling on an issue which continues to surface in the school bus industry.

With an increasing number of families in which both parents work full-time jobs, more and more children are being placed in privately owned and operated pre-primary school type facilities.

As referenced in the attached letter, the NHTSA has determined that buses purchased to transport pre-primary Headstart children to and from school and related events should be "School Buses" (within the scope of the bus definition . . . designed for carr ying more than 10 persons).

My question is, does this same ruling also apply to the privately owned and operated pre-primary facilities?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht90-2.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 12, 1990

FROM: Derek Sander, Motores Internacionales, S.A.

TO: Tony Llama, DAVENPORT ENTERPRISES

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Llama from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591); and letter dated 6-11-90 to S. P. Wood from T. Llama; (OCC 4894)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that, according to our conversation, we have decided to ship to your company a "RAF" Van, built in the Soviet Union. Its respective numbers of chassis and engine will be forwarded to you shortly.

As we discussed, we would like to have you design and install a dual air conditioning unit for this van. This is a new type of vehicle and there is not one available anywhere in the market.

Please let us know the requirements, as well as, the most convenient Port of Entry into the United States.

ID: nht90-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PRESIDENT, PANDA TECHNIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM MICHAEL F. PICKHOLZ -- PANDA TECHNIK TO NHTSA; OCC 4689

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1990, enclosing a sample of a motor vehicle reflector, expressing your concern that "no laws or regulations are violated in the use" of it.

It is contemplated that the reflector will be distributed in the United States to enhance nighttime and adverse weather visibility of slow moving/stationery vehicles. The reflective efficiency is represented to be up to ten times that of conventional re flectors, such as those "required by law" on motor vehicles. The photograph you enclosed shows the reflectors mounted on a large, wide truck or trailer. The reflector "can be installed with simple hand tools", on either the front or rear of the vehicle.

It is apparent from your letter that Panda intends the reflector to be an aftermarket device, and one that is capable of installation by the vehicle owner. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the reflector as an aftermarket device, and there is no Federal prohibition applicable to installation of the reflector by a vehicle owner.

There is a general prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which modifications may not be performed to vehicles in use, by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, if they result in renderi ng inoperable, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Should the reflective efficiency and mounting location of your reflector result in a reduced ability of drivers of o ther vehicles to perceive the turn and stop signals of the vehicle on which the reflector is mounted, we would regard the turn and stop signals to have been rendered inoperable in part within the meaning of the prohibition. Thus, you should ensure that the device would not have this effect.

Supplementary lighting devices are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Bouleva rd, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

We are returning your sample.

ID: nht90-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KARL-HEINZ FABER -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/90 FROM KARL HEINZ FABER TO BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA; RE ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT; OCC 4699

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1990 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR @ 571.201). More specifically, yo u stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storag e. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone.

Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for "interior compartment doors," since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the F ederal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards wo uld apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors "located in an instrument p anel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position" remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest de sign would qualify as an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 571.3 "(any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effec ts"). If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an "interior compartment door." If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an "int erior compartment door" and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position. . . ." Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3 .3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1.

You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree th at your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest des ign is "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht90-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Normand Laurendeau, Esq. -- Guy And Gilbert

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2); ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M. SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6 /10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and al so investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of mot or vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic a nd export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing bein g sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and d istributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as " one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prim e glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways". Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehi cles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identifi ed the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distribu tor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing th at are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section

108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) 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 motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glaz ing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor veh icle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment by such . . . distributor the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety stand ards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $ 1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $ 800,000.

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

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?