ID: nht92-3.38

DATE: 09/29/92

FROM: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, LITIGATION DIVISION, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DONALD G. MCGUIGAN (A40; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests NHTSA's concurrence in our interpretation of how compliance with the newly-effective amendment to Section 4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 appropriately may be demonstrated. Our associated company, Mazda Motor Corporation, informs us that in designing the key-locking and shift control mechanisms for the Ford-built 1993 Escort and Tracer vehicles, as well as for certain Mazda vehicles, it understood that compliance with the "key-locking system" requirement of the recently-amended FMVSS 114 was to be demonstrated by attempting to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents. When so tested, the key-locking systems of 1993 Escort and Tracers "prevent removal of the key" except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "Park" detent.

We have become aware of speculation that it would be appropriate to test compliance with S4.2's "key-locking system" requirements by deliberately placing the transmission shift lever at various points between the "Reverse" and "Park" position gear selector detents while attempting to remove the ignition key. When so tested, the shift control system on at least a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers can be manipulated to one or another spot -- varying from vehicle to vehicle -- at which the key can be removed while the selector lever is held short of engaging the "Park" positioning detent. (Because the parking pawl will be engaged in or abutted on the park gear, the vehicles will not be free to roll more than a matter of inches). We are informed and believe that it may be possible to induce key removal while the selector lever is mispositioned between gears in vehicles produced by other manufacturers, too.

Ford respectfully submits that a compliance test involving mispositioning of the shift control lever between gear positions would be inappropriate in light of the revised standard's purpose and history. Such a test would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the recent amendment to FMVSS 114 is to prevent shifting errors (i.e., to ensure that drivers attempting to shift into "Park" fully engage the park mechanism on the vehicle). Of course, the rulemaking record regarding the FMVSS 114 amendment to S4.2 repeatedly indicates that the primary purpose of the FMVSS 114 amendments is to ensure that children or other occupants of a vehicle parked on a slanted surface with the ignition off and the key removed will not be able to move the transmission shift lever out of the "Park" detent, thereby placing the transmission in a neutral mode and creating the potential for a rollaway accident.

There is no indication in the rulemaking history that the revisions of FMVSS 114 are intended to address shifting errors. Indeed, shortly after issuance of the amendment to FMVSS 114 in question, the agency appropriately concluded in another context that the potential for "inadvertent vehicle movement" incidents because of shift control mispositioning is "relatively small" and did not justify beginning a rulemaking proceeding. See, W. A. Barr, 55 Fed. Reg. 25340 (June 21, 1990).

A test based upon mispositioning the shift control lever also seems inappropriate for the additional reason that no peculiar hazard arises because the transmission shift lever may have been left in-between the "Reverse" and "Park" detents. In assessing any safety implications related to an unattended child in a parked vehicle, it must be remebered that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers to have until September 1, 1993 to install covers that would "childproof" the key-lock system override button. Thus, at least in vehicles produced before September 1, 1993, a child who pushed the override button could move the transmission shift lever in a parked vehicle with the key removed, regardless of whether or not the transmission shift lever had been properly positioned in the "Park" detent.

More importantly, since the key-locking system requirement of FMVSS 114 only covers the situation where the ignition has been turned off by removal of the key, the possibility of vehicle movement addressed by the standard involves only unpowered rollaway, and arises only if the vehicle has been parked on a slanted surface without the parking brake having been set. Thus, the scenario envisioned by the revised standard involves even smaller potential for injuries due to inadvertent vehicle movement than the scenarios assessed by NHTSA when it evaluated the Barr petition which included, among other things, powered movement of unattended vehicles.

We hope that you are in agreement with our view of the appropriate approach to FMVSS 114 compliance testing. Assuming this to be the case, we would appreciate your confirming this by return correspondence. We are available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

ID: nht92-3.39

DATE: September 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/92 from Robert N. Moore to Mr. Curry (OCC-7681)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 16, 1992 to former Administrator Curry. Specifically, your letter asks whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) a right which is enforceable under the authority of 42 U.S.C. S1983. You have raised this issue in a law suit concerning injuries you received while being transported in a passenger van that had been converted into a "paddy wagon." The vehicle was not equipped with safety belts for the passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain for you the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to the civil rights provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in most vehicles. However, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

Thus, I cannot offer an opinion about whether there may have been a violation of the Safety Act without knowing if the passenger van was modified into a "paddy wagon" before or after its first purchase for purposes other than resale and who performed the modifications. If the State purchased the vehicle and made the modifications itself, there would have been no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle did not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Such modifications may, however, violate the laws of the State of Iowa. You may wish to contact the State of Iowa to learn if it has adopted any laws or regulations pertaining to owners' modifications to their vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.4

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: MARK V. SCHWARTZ -- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- U.S. DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: 49CFR PART 572, ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES, YOUR LETTER OF 9/29/92

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK V. SCHWARTZ (A40; PART 572)

TEXT: We have received subject letter and read it with great interest. We are extremely disappointed with the contents of this letter. By taking no position on the equivalency issue, you are dictating that the market be sole sourced with the 7231C from Endevco.

Though your letter states that the users of the accelerometers are free to define equivalence, the reality is that they will take no unnecessary course of action that varies from your compliance testing. I have talked with technical decision makers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler and have received the same feedback from all three. They will not use an accelerometer to do development and certification work, when they know that you have legislated that a different accelerometer be used for compliance testing.

I am no lawyer, but it is my understanding that the U.S. Government is not allowed to legislate that a specific supplier be used. By refusing to address the definition of equivalency in paragraph 572.36 (g), that is exactly what you are doing.

This action is not only unfair to Entran Devices and other accelerometer manufacturers, but it adds to the cost of the test. The published one piece price for the 7231C is $ 750, while the published one piece price for Entran's EGE-72C-750 is $ 545. How is a 27% price premium justified?

Entran's position is unchanged from my original letter of July 9, 1992. We feel that Entran's EGE-72C-750 is "equivalent" to Endevco's 7231C. I am again requesting a clarification of the regulation that will either confirm that we are equivalent or define specific reasons why we are not.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation on this matter. If there should be any questions or requirements for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 800-635-0650.

Very truly yours

ENTRAN DEVICES, INC.

ID: nht92-3.40

DATE: September 25, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC-7579)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your follow-up inquiry about a recent amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems that deletes the requirement for a trailer to have a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. The final rule allows air from the tractor supply lines to be used to release the parking brakes instead of air from such a reservoir. (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed)

In our earlier response to you dated May 21, 1992, we stated that a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment became effective. That letter explained that while the amendment deleted a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

You now ask what pressure must be retained in the supply line with any single leakage type failure in the service brake system if an original equipment manufacturer decides to use a system with a protected reservoir. You explained that you are aware of a system that has a 60 psi pressure amplification valve that results in having 90 p.s.i. holding off the spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our requirements to you.

In deleting the provision requiring a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake, the agency adopted requirements in S5.8 addressing supply line pressure retention. That provision states that under certain test conditions

"any single leakage type failure in the service brake system (except for a failure of the supply line, a valve directly connected to the supply line or a component of a brake chamber housing) shall not result in the pressure in the supply line falling below 70 p.s.i., measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. . ." (S5.8.2)

Based on the above provision, the pressure in the supply line is not permitted to fall below 70 p.s.i when measured at the forward trailer supply coupling. Accordingly, a system with 60 p.s.i. in the supply line measured at the forward trailer supply coupling would not comply with the express requirements set forth in S5.8.2. Please be aware that after October 8, 1992, the provision in S5.8.2 applies to all new trailers, including those manufactured with a protected separate reservoir.

Your letter appears to imply that there would be no safety problem in having the pressure in the supply line falling to 60 p.s.i. if a pressure amplification valve served to hold off the spring brakes. I note, however,

that problems could occur if only one trailer in a mixed train, multiple trailer combination used such an amplification valve. For example, if a single leakage-type failure in the service brake system of such a trailer resulted in the supply line pressure falling to 60 p.s.i., this could cause the supply line pressure in following trailers to also fall to 60 p.s.i. If the following trailers were not equipped with an amplification valve, they could experience brake drag.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.41

DATE: September 24, 1992

FROM: C. Morris Adams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Paula Hanna -- Exec. Sec., NAPT; Charles Gauthier -- MVSS Compliance Section, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/92 Est. from Paul Jackson Rice to C. Morris Adams (A40; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I retired from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. in December 1990, after 45 years of service to the school transportation industry in North America. Although I retired, I remain totally committed to and interested in school transportation safety for our children.

During the last seven years of my career, I spent a very large percentage of my efforts in behalf of our children by educating our people and regulatory agencies on the pros and cons of lap belts vs. compartmentalization in school buses. The overwhelming evidence is in support of compartmentalization as mandated by NHTSA.

New York state and New Jersey along with some local districts are mandating lap belts in addition to NHTSA mandated compartmentalization. Therefore, the purpose of this letter of request for a legal ruling from your office as to the legality of lap belts on school buses that are required by federal regulation to utilize the passive restraint system - compartmentalization.

FMVSS 222 has as its intent the prevention of passengers colliding with dangerous objects inside the bus.

Compartmentalization relies upon specially designed energy absorbing passenger seat systems (structure, padding, flexibility spacing) to provide the spreading of energy forces over a large percentage of the child's body upon impact with the seat and/or barrier immediately in front of the passenger.

School bus manufacturers build and certify in compliance with FMVSS 222. If lap belts are required by the purchaser, they are installed.

At this point in the process there seems to be no problem for anyone involved. However -

The beneficial purpose of FMVSS 222 has now been removed. Once the lap belt is applied to the child, the child's body pivots around the belt and the head will come into contact with the seat back or barrier in front of the child. In addition to violent head injuries, possible pelvic and abdominal injuries or fatalities may result. The impact energy forces no longer are spread over the upper torso and upper thighs. Therefore, the intent of FMVSS 222 is no longer attainable even though the bus was built and certified to comply with the "technical" requirements of FMVSS 222.

The addition of the lap belt or a lap bar restraint rendered

compartmentalization null and void.

If the seats are allowed to be spaced so that when the child pivots around the lap restraint the head will not contact the forward seat back or barrier, the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 is still violated. In addition, wider spacing would reduce passenger capacity.

Wider spacing of seats would destroy compartmentalization and should the child passenger not have the belt fastened, then the child could become a flying missile with no designed compartment to restrain it.

Based upon the above data I strongly believe lap belts or restraining bars violate the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 and should be ruled illegal in use on school buses required to meet FMVSS 222.

In the interest of the 23 million pupils transported daily in safe school buses, I respectfully request a prompt ruling in their behalf.

ID: nht92-3.42

DATE: September 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/92 from Gary L. Hopkins to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7633)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR S571.124). More specifically, your letter sought "confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124." As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect. Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine.

The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology.

S4.1 sets forth the following definitions:

Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.

Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump.

Driver-operated accelerator control system means all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.

You said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system "modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to

control engine power."

You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the "fuel metering device." Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system," because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control.

You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as "the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver- operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver- operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed." Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed.

NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.43

DATE: 09/23/92

FROM: THOMAS D. PRICE -- PRESIDENT, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO THOMAS PRICE (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Strait-Stop Manufacturing Company, Inc. has developed, tested and is marketing a product line of noncomputerized antilock braking assist systems for air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake and vacuum/hydraulic brake installations on trucks and trailers. We responded to the agency's questionaire on rulemaking for ABS, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, in August this year.

As we have proceeded on our marketing program, we have encountered some confusion and misunderstanding regarding the role of the DOT and the NHTSA with respect to the ABS products available today. The most common question we have encountered is, "Are you certified or approved by DOT or NHTSA?". We have responded that the federal regulators neither approve nor disapprove any specific ABS product. Often our response is considered in error and self-serving.

In the development of our product line we have been highly cognizant of our responsibility to avoid any adverse effect which might jeopardize any vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 121, FMVSS 106 or any other safety standards with which we are familiar.

Would you please respond to the above by specifying the NHTSA policy regarding approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular ABS product? Secondly, in view of the scope of our product line, indicated in the first paragraph, would you please provide us with a listing of the various standards and regulations with which we should be conversant? And lastly, would you please delineate the obligation of an OEM, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used or in use motor vehicle as regards its satisfaction of requirements of all applicable safety standards?

Due to the ease of installation of our products on after market vehicles, our primary market is the retrofit category. As currently indicated, the new regulations, which are yet to be formulated and proposed, will address only new vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the standards. However, it is our desire and intent that our product line will meet or exceed the prescribed performance standards. At the present time our test and performance statistics indicate that vehicles equipped with our products not only meet all performance standards, but also significantly reduce vehicle operating costs.

Please let me know how we may secure or have access to a copy of the complete Docket Number 92-29; Notice 1, including the responses submitted and made a part thereof?

ID: nht92-3.44

DATE: September 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H. Milligan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/10/92 from David H. Milligan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7532)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your

device contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

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

ID: nht92-3.45

DATE: 09/22/92

FROM: LAWRENCE A. BEYER -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TO: Z. TAYLOR VINSON, ESQ. -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-24-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A40; PART 592)

TEXT: This letter is in reference to my request to become a Registered Importer. I feel that this request is in keeping with the intention of the Act, in that I am very knowledgeable with the requirements of NHTSA.

I have relocated my office to upstate New York. I am very close to several ports, such as Buffalo, Alexandria Bay, and Champlaign. I would intend to only perform actual modifications on those canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications. I certainly have the ability to do these changes.

Should any major modifications be required, these vehicles would not be accepted and refferal would be made to the other R.I.s.

You expressed concern that I would act as an agent for another R.I. This is not a problem. Since I represent four current R.I.s, it would not be fair to make refferals to only one company. Additionally, as an attorney, I cannot accept kickbacks or refferal fees from non-lawyers.

The facilities I would use are a three car garage, complete set of tools, including pneumatics, and storage space for many vehicles. I would have in my employ several people including a certified electrician and former auto mechanics teacher, as well as a current mechanic at Midas Muffler. Since I have helped set up several other R.I.s record keeping mechanisms, my files would be consistent with NHTSA's standards

ID: nht92-3.46

DATE: September 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/20/92 from Richard Allison to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7669)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 20, 1992 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. Specifically, you requested "an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks)."

You believe that there are three possible test conditions. The first condition would conduct the test either without the roof rack installed or with the roof rack removed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2. The second condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned using the point of contact established under test condition 1. The third condition would conduct the test with the roof rack installed, and with the test device positioned in accordance with S6.2 to the roof rack. You requested our interpretation as to which is the correct test condition. In addition, you asked if we determined that either test condition 2 or 3 was correct, could the amount of distance traveled before contact with the roof be added to the allowable distance of test device travel under S4.

We would conduct our compliance testing for Standard No. 216 with roof mounted accessories such as roof racks removed (your test condition 1). We would do so because the purpose of the test is to measure the strength of the roof, not the strength of roof mounted accessories. Further, as you have noted, conducting the test with roof mounted accessories in place could influence the positioning of the test device.

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