ID: 21063geninfosuzuki.df

Mr. Eugene Y. Suzuki
Representative of PPC
2-16-15 Oyamadai
Setagaya
Tokyo 158-0086, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your fax to the Safety Assurance office of this agency, generally describing a product called the "Car Life Jacket" that you wish to export to the United States. You state that the Car Life Jacket "is a jacket type seat belt, made of proven one-piece seat belt, buckles, and back/front protections with fuses, for 2-5 year old children . . . ." Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.

Your Car Life Jacket is a device that is designed to restrain children in motor vehicles. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Based on your letter, we believe the Car Life Jacket is a type of child restraint system known as a "harness." Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these standards.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either:

1. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or
2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

There are also two procedural regulations that you need to meet to import your child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, "Manufacturer Identification." This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States).

The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules." Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed is a copy of a March 5, 1999 final rule that amended the head excursion requirement of Standard No. 213 and that added a requirement for an independent means of attaching to a child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. (See also the first part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule, 64 FR 47566, copy enclosed.) These requirements affect primarily child restraints other than harnesses. However, as part of your responsibility as a manufacturer, we urge you to keep current on the requirements of Standard No. 213.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.3/30/00

ID: 1982-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rynex Industries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, detailing a plan of business and asking our comments on its legality under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and how you might accomplish your plan.

In essence, your wish is to import newly-manufactured Volkswagen Beetles which are complete except for the engine, and which do not meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your intended customers are owners of older model Beetles the engines of which would be installed in the new Beetles, while the older cars would be scrapped.

Notwithstanding the lack of engine, we would view importation of the newly-manufactured Beetles as importation of "motor vehicles" which would have to be brought into conformance with all standards applicable to new motor vehicles. If you wished simply to install a new body on the old chassis, the resulting assemblage would nevertheless have to meet the standards in effect when the original vehicle was manufactured, i.e., if the vehicle being modified is a 1971 model, it would have to continue to meet the standards that were in effect in 1971 when the new body was installed but if the chassis were manufactured before January 1, 1968, none of the standards applicable to vehicles would have to be met. If no standards applied to the vehicle, nevertheless the Federal standards that currently apply to equipment items would have to be met by those items for them to be validly imported into the country.

You have asked about these standards. They are found at Part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations and they are: No. 106 (brake hoses), No. 108 (lighting equipment and reflectors), No. 109 (tires), No. 116 (brake fluid), No. 205 (glazing materials), No. 209 (seat belt assemblies), and No. 211 (wheel covers and nuts).

In essence, while you term your business the "repair and restoration" of Beetles, you are neither repairing nor restoring an older motor vehicle, but simply planning to sell a vehicle that is entirely new except for its engine. It must therefore be treated as a new motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

Rynex INDUSTRIES

September 15, 1982

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Rynex Industries, an individual proprietorship which is the d/b/a of the undersigned and is registered with the Saratoga County Clerk, Ballston Spa, NY 12020, desires to begin a business project as an importer of new motor vehicle parts and equipment with a view toward providing a unique repair and restoration service for a specialized group of Volkswagen Beetle owners. We apply herewith for a legal determination in terms of which we will become able to complete and implement our business plan in a manner such that we would remain characterized by NHTSA as an importer of new automotive parts and equipment for the repair and restoration of existing VW Beetles, and not become characterized instead as an importer of new VW Beetles for resale.

OUR CUSTOMERS

Members of the customer group we wish to serve regard their Beetles not as mere transportation until they are no longer dependable, but as "members of the family" whose welfare, function, and concept must be perpetuated. They are hard-core Beetle Buffs who begin where others give up in their attempts to continue driving their faithful but aging Beetles.

Each such customer would like most of all to purchase a bew Beetle, but cannot because none have been imported here since 1979. Some have taken their Beetles to re-conditioning ("re-con") shops for restoration, but have been quoted prohibitive prices there without credible guarantees of quality results commensurate with the prices. Therefore, Rynex desires to fill this obvious need for repair and restoration service in a very economical manner by importing the necessary new body-chassis assemblies from countries where the Beetle is still being manufactured.

OUR PROPOSED BUSINESS PROCEDURE

We are tentatively planning to conduct our importing business according to the following basic procedures:

1) Upon receipt of a customer order for a Beetle body-chassis assembly, Rynex would forward the order to the foreign manufacturer.

Rynex would simultaneously forward to the customer an acknowledgement of the order together with complete instructions for the service garage designated by the customer.

2) The manufacturer would ship the assembly with Rynex's Customs declaration directly to the customer's service garage for us by dropshipment, through a suitable freight-forwarding firm if necessary, on and for the account of, and in the name of, Rynex Industries.

3) Upon receipt of the new assembly, the garage would remove the engine from the customer's old Beetle and install it in the new assembly.

4) In compliance with applicable state regulations, the garage would also transfer the chassis number from the old assembly to the new one, together with the license number plates.

5) The garage would then make all necessary modifications to the new assembly to bring it into full compliance with applicable NHTSA Equipment Standards, and with applicable state inspection standards for the condition and performance of automotive equipment.

6) The garage would then apply a complete undercoating treatment to the new assembly to prevent the recurrence of rust damage.

7) The garage would then road-test the restored Beetle and return it to the customer.

8) The garage would then take possession of the customer's old body-chassis assembly and dismantle it for parts and scrap metal, because the customer would no longer need it, because it would no longer have an identification number, and because it would probably have become unsafe for continued use by anyone.

9) The customer would then apply to his underwriter for "stated amount" comprehensive, fire, theft, and collision (Coverage D) insurance to protect the larger equity he or she would then have in the restored Beetle.

10) The customer would then contact his or her state motor vehicle bureau concerning changes in registration. However, this step would be unnecessary unless the color of the restored Beetle were different, inasmuch as the customer would have legally the very same car described on his registration certificate or title. He would have the same engine and engine number, same license number plates, same chassis number in particular; and of course the make, year, model, and all other required information would be the same.

WHY BODY AND CHASSIS MUST BE REPLACED TOGETHER

We must point out why it would be necessary to restore a VW Beetle in this manner by replacing the body and chassis as a unit, and never by attempting to replace just one or the other. It is a fact that an aging Beetle is subject to severe and irreparable rust damage to both members all around the bottom edge precisely where the body is joined to the chassis. This rust damage, once it appears in an aging Beetle, continues until the entire assembly is unsafe -- the driver's seat and/or the battery might begin to come through the floor pan, for example.

Therefore, to render worthwhile and thoroughgoing service to the customer and in the public interest of highway safety, Rynex must replace the entire body-chassis assembly for each customer, and must provide undercoating to prevent rust damage to the new assembly. However, the customer would benefit not only from gaining this essential safety, but also from having his or her repaired and restored Beetle become as much like a new car as possible, as it would indeed become with a complete new body-chassis assembly.

THE LEGAL HELP WE THINK WE NEED

Desiring as we do to comply with all Federal regulations which would apply to this business project, it appears to the undersigned that we would need to learn at least the following through a legal determination:

1) On Form HS-7, 39 CFR 12.80, the Customs declaration, we would check paragraph 7 and the box therein to declare that our automotive equipment was being imported for repairs and alterations, in accordance with the statement to be attached to the HS-7, which statement would describe fully the use and final disposition to be made of the merchandise. We would need advice concerning, in view of our business procedure described above, the exact content our attached statement should have in order to satisfy Customs officials so that they could admit our shipments without delay.

2) Our proposed business plan calls for the importing-to-order of a VW Beetle complete except for the engine, which we have called herein a "body-chassis assembly". Our question about doing this would be whether we could do precisely that, or whether we would have to import a less-complete body-chassis assembly and have the customer retain and re-use more of the parts from his old car, in order that we sustain our characterization as an importer of automotive equipment for repair and restoration; in this latter event, we would need to know which parts in addition to the engine the customer would have to retain and re-use.

3) We would need a list of the NHTSA Equipment Standards which the body-chassis assemblies we would import would have to meet -- such as those for lamps, tires, brake fluid, window glass, and the like. These equipment items could be brought into compliance after being imported, or be specially ordered to be in compliance when imported, if necessary.

We therefore request a legal determination concerning the viability of our plans as described above for conducting our importing business for the repair and restoration of VW Beetles, and concerning changes which you might decide that we would have to make in our plans before we proceed further.

Donald F. Conine President

ID: nht70-1.28

DATE: 02/11/70

FROM: CLUE. D. FERGUSON -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE STRUCTURES, MOTOR VEH. PROGRAMS, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY F.C. KOCH

TO: Mr. Eddie E. Barnes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belts in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.

The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires that seat belt assemblies be installed in each forward-facing designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats: however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.

A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969, which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analysed and the final rule is now being developed.

I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: 30122 - Make inoperative - Alan Nappier april 14

ID: 16614-1.pja

Mr. Shane K. Lack
Mechanical Engineer
Human Factors Division
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Lack:

This responds to your request that we review your draft summaries and interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 (49 CFR 571.205, Glazing materials) and 217 (49 CFR 571.217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release). We apologize for the delay in responding.

Because your documents are lengthy (36 pages) and contain so many statements, questions, and interpretations, we are unable to address each individual point in this letter. Instead, we will confirm that, in general, your summaries and interpretations of our standards are correct. We offer the following answers to your questions and corrections to a few of your interpretations, with reference to the page number and line number of your summary. For brevity, we have paraphrased the relevant portions of your letter in italics.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials

Questions on page 1, lines 1 through 9, and lines 22 through 27: Will any material that meets the tests for a specific item of glazing be considered to be that kind of glazing, or do materials specifications (e.g., rigid plastic) restrict the choice of material?

The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The material of which the glazing is constructed is not specified. Both Standard 205 and the American National Standard, Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways -- ANSI Z26.1-1977 (hereafter referred to as ANSI Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in the CFR) may refer to specific kinds of glazing in headings. Examples of this are in paragraph S5.1.2.3 of the standard, which refers to "flexible plastics," and the column headings of Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which lists materials such as "laminated glass." These headings are for illustrative purposes only, to indicate the material and construction that typically is used to meet the enumerated tests. See note 1 to Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which specifically states that future materials that meet the enumerated tests may be used. Therefore, any material that meets all the tests for a particular item of glazing complies with the standard, regardless of composition or construction.

Question on line 28 through 33: What about paragraph S5.1.2.2, which in the text of the standard itself seems to restrict item 12 glazing to safety plastics?

Again, the mention of safety plastics is illustrative. The words "safety plastics" should not have been included in the standard. However, the performance-based method (i.e., whatever meets the tests) of determining compliance is maintained even for item 12 glazing.

Question on page 1, lines 34 and 35, and page 2, lines 1 and 2: Are the glazing materials approved for the side windows of buses the same regardless of the gross vehicle weight rating and whether the bus is a school bus or a non-school bus?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Question on page 2, line 8: Is the list on lines 9 through 22 showing approved glazing types for side windows of buses correct?

The list of approved glazing types on page 2 is correct.

Question on page 2, line 25: Does each piece of glazing material have to be stamped with "AS" followed by the item no. of the glazing?

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 26: Does Standard No. 205 allow glazing materials that shatter to be placed in the side windows of buses, as long as those materials shatter into small pieces.

Yes.

Question on page 2, line 28: Does Standard No. 205 require a measurement of the dynamic force deflection curve of glazing materials?

No, it does not.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release

Interpretation at page 1, line 27: To be counted as an emergency exit, an exit must be in compliance with all emergency exit requirements for that type of exit.

We assume when you say "to be counted" you mean whether a particular exit would count for determining if the bus has the correct number of exits specified in Standard No. 217. When conducting a compliance inspection of a new vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would normally have the manufacturer's certification data showing which exits are designated as emergency exits. If an exit did not comply in some way, this agency would not "uncount" that exit for meeting exit number and exit area requirements. Instead, the vehicle would be considered to have failed only the requirements that were not fulfilled. For example, if an otherwise compliant exit were not labeled, the bus would fail only the S5.1.1 labeling requirement. The area for that exit would still be counted for meeting the emergency exit number and area requirements.

Interpretation on page 1, line 31: The minimum size of an emergency exit window in a non-school bus is the area of an ellipsoid having a major axis parallel to the ground of 50 cm and a minor axis of 33 cm. This minimum total area of an emergency exit on a non-school bus is 510.5 square centimeters.

The first sentence of your interpretation is correct. Your computation in the second sentence is incorrect. The minimum emergency exit opening computes to 1296 sq. cm for a 33cm X 50cm ellipsoid. The area of an ellipse = 3.14 times the product of the major and minor semi-axes.

Interpretation on page 2, line 24: For non-school buses with a GVWR > 10,000 lb, there is no prohibition against placing side emergency exits vertically above one another.

While it is true that there is no prohibition explicitly stated in the standard, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistently with their purposes. The purpose behind the emergency exit requirements, which is clearly reflected paragraph S2 and in its preambles on the subject, is to provide readily accessible emergency egress. It is highly unlikely that a manufacturer would actually place emergency exits in such an unusual configuration. If it did, NHTSA would not regard the emergency exit placed on top of another as being accessible, and would not count it toward meeting the requirements.

Interpretation on page 2, lines 29 through 30: There are no guidelines on lateral or longitudinal placement of roof emergency hatches.

Paragraph S5.2.1 allows manufacturers of non-school buses to meet the specifications for non-school buses in S5.2.2 or the specifications for school buses in S5.2.3. If S5.2.2 is followed and a roof exit is needed because a rear exit cannot be provided, then paragraph S5.2.2.2 specifies that the roof exit is to be located in the rear half of the bus. If S5.2.3 is followed, then S5.3.2.2(b) specifies both the longitudinal and lateral position of all roof exits.

Interpretation on page 4, line 1: An emergency release mechanism is defined in previous NHTSA interpretations as a mechanism that prevents an exit from opening.

We do not know to which interpretation you are referring. A computerized search of all our previous interpretation letters did not reveal an interpretation with those words. It is true, however, that the provisions specifying that the release mechanisms can only be actuated by applications of a certain magnitude of force in certain directions are designed to prevent inadvertent opening of an exit.

I hope this is helpful. Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in our reply.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205# 217
d.2/17/99

ID: aiam4838

Dear Mr. Ozeki: This responds to your letter of August 8, 199 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the 'lowest point of the door' referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself. For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that '. . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door.' Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the 'lowest part of the door' would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: 2839o

Karl-Heinz Faber
Vice President
Product Compliance and Service
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchorage location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements.

The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of manual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that "meet" the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles "subject to" the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safety belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

In your second question, you asked the following:

We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped 'as delivered' for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#210 d:3/l4/88

ID: nht95-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for clarification of interpretation of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated April 3, 1995 regarding FMVSS 210 location requirements, and more specifically S 4.3. This section states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal cr ash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

Although Mr. Recht's April 3 letter discusses the meaning of this provision, kindly confirm for our records that seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210:

A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint system meets the frontal and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested unde r FMVSS 208.

Your immediate attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

ID: 003788_noggin_nest

Ms. Liz Franqui
The Boppy Company
560 Golden Ridge Rd., Suite 150
Golden, CO 80401

Dear Ms. Franqui:

This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Noggin Nest. According to your letter, the Noggin Nest is placed behind a babys head "to prevent Flat Head Syndrome." You currently market the product for use in a stroller, car seat [sic], bouncer or swing and would like to market the product for use in motor vehicle child restraint systems. You ask what regulations apply to the Noggin Nest and whether the product can be used in a child restraint without hindering the restraints performance in a crash.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(7) of our statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 301; "the Safety Act") defines the term "motor vehicle equipment," in pertinent part, as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) [or] any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. [Emphasis added.]

NHTSA has two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We believe that the Noggin Nest would meet both of these criteria when you start marketing it for use in child restraint systems. A substantial portion of the expected use of the product would be with respect to use with child restraints. The product would be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Noggin Nest. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system.

While no FMVSS applies to the Noggin Nest, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Noggin Nest would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

You state in your letter that you want to ensure that the Noggin Nest would not affect compliance with FMVSS No. 213 or otherwise interfere with the performance of the child restraint system and ask for guidance in this area. NHTSA is unable to ascertain whether and to what degree your product would affect the performance of a child restraint. However, we make the following observations for your information. The photographs you enclosed show that the product has slots through which the child restraints belts are routed. Depending on their design, some slots could restrict the belts' ability to perform in a crash. Further, padding inserted between the child restraint and the child passenger could compress in a crash and introduce slack into the belt system. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Noggin Nest must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Noggin Nest. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.7/19/04

ID: nht75-2.11

DATE: 11/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1975, to Mr. A. Y. Casanova, Office of Crash Avoidance, concerning the rapid loss of air test specified in S4.4.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The test procedure specified in the above cited section of Standard No. 110 requires operating the test vehicle, equipped with the tire and rim combination to be tested, at 60 mph and rapidly deflating the tire. Rapid deflation can be achieved by any method that brings the deflated tire to a full "flat" state while the vehicle is still traveling at 60 mph. Among these methods are:

(1) running the test tire over a V-shaped knife edge,

(2) exploding a small detonation cap to puncture the tire,

(3) evacuating the tire by means of an instrumented vacuum system, and

(4) pulling out the value stem.

Once the tire is deflated, the vehicle is brought to a controlled stop. The tire must remain on the rim.

You specifically asked the position of the beads after the conclusion of the test procedure. The standard requires that the rim retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped. "Retain the deflated tire" means that the tire beads must be within the rim. The beads need not remain on the bead seat during this test, e.g., one bead may drop into the wall of the rim. However, at no time shall a tire bead be outside of the rim so that the rim is operating on the inside of the deflated tire.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office of Standards Enforcement

Gentlemen:

Please send me one copy of the following publications and if there is a charge please bill us.

1. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" latest issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109/117

2. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 119

I will look forward to your early consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda, Technical Representative -- The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

August 1, 1975

A. Y. Casanova -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Operations Systems

Dear Mr. Casanova:

Re: FMUSS #110

As I discussed on the phone, I am very interested in the test procedure concerning the "Rapid Air Loss Test". Please give me more information about this matter.

I would like to especially know the bead position after the test is finished.

Attached please find the letter which I sent to your office on June 17, 1975.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda -- Technical Representative, The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.