ID: aiam3670

Dear Mr. Eschino: This responds to your February 9, 1983, letter asking about th compliance of a device that you manufacture with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The device is a head support for children which has several uses, one of which would be in a car seat. You specifically ask to obtain the Federal seal for use on your package.; Only those items of equipment to which specific Federal safet standards apply are marked with the DOT symbol which indicates that they are in compliance with applicable safety standards. From our analysis of your product, it is not a piece of equipment subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since your device does not need to comply with any of our requirements, you would not need, nor would you be permitted to use, the DOT symbol.; We would recommend, however, from a product liability point of vie that you ensure that your product complies with flammability requirements. I am enclosing a copy of our flammability standard that you might use as a guideline, although as I stated earlier, you would not be required to comply with this standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1911

Dear Ivan: This is in response to your recent letter requesting clarification o two points concerning motorcycle helmet dealers' responsibilities under Standard 218.; You ask first about the penalties which would apply to 'dealers wh knowingly sell non DOT labeled helmets for on-road use.' Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) reads in pertinent part:; >>>'No person shall...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver fo introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard ...'<<<; Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides for civil penalties o up to $1000 for each violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. Each sale or offer for sale constitutes a separate violation of the Act.; As you know, Standard 218 applies only to helmets fitting the size headform and manufactured after February 28, 1974. Thus, dealers may continue to sell size C helmets manufactured before March 1, 1974. We have taken the position that any helmets designed to fit a range of head sizes that includes the approximate dimensions of the size C headform must meet the requirements of Standard 218. A helmet is considered not to fit a size C headform only if it is clearly intended by its manufacturer to be used only by persons whose heads are either larger or smaller than the size C headform.; With regard to racing or other off-road helmets we have taken th position that such helmets must be clearly and prominently labeled as not for use on public highways. The following label was considered acceptable:; >>>IMPORTANT: THIS HELMET IS MANUFACTURED FOR RACING AND SIMILA OFF-ROAD SPORTS ONLY, AND IS NOT REGULATED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IT IS NOT FOR USE ON PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.<<<; You ask further whether helmet manufacturers must keep records of firs purchasers. The answer is no. NHTSA believes that keeping such records is a sound business practice which is generally necessary in connection with a responsible warranty program, but this agency presently requires such recordkeeping only by motor vehicle and tire manufacturers, not by equipment manufacturers.; I enclose a copy of the Act which incorporates the 1974 amendments. I I can be of further assistance in your worthwhile and much needed educational program please let me know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1908

Dear Ivan: This is in response to your recent letter requesting clarification o two points concerning motorcycle helmet dealers' responsibilities under Standard 218.; You ask first about the penalties which would apply to 'dealers wh knowingly sell non DOT labeled helmets for on-road use.' Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397) reads in pertinent part:; >>>'No person shall...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver fo introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard ...'<<<; Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides for civil penalties o up to $1000 for each violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. Each sale or offer for sale constitutes a separate violation of the Act.; As you know, Standard 218 applies only to helmets fitting the size headform and manufactured after February 28, 1974. Thus, dealers may continue to sell size C helmets manufactured before March 1, 1974. We have taken the position that any helmets designed to fit a range of head sizes that includes the approximate dimensions of the size C headform must meet the requirements of Standard 218. A helmet is considered not to fit a size C headform only if it is clearly intended by its manufacturer to be used only by persons whose heads are either larger or smaller than the size C headform.; With regard to racing or other off-road helmets we have taken th position that such helmets must be clearly and prominently labeled as not for use on public highways. The following label was considered acceptable:; >>>IMPORTANT: THIS HELMET IS MANUFACTURED FOR RACING AND SIMILA OFF-ROAD SPORTS ONLY, AND IS NOT REGULATED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IT IS NOT FOR USE ON PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.<<<; You ask further whether helmet manufacturers must keep records of firs purchasers. The answer is no. NHTSA believes that keeping such records is a sound business practice which is generally necessary in connection with a responsible warranty program, but this agency presently requires such recordkeeping only by motor vehicle and tire manufacturers, not by equipment manufacturers.; I enclose a copy of the Act which incorporates the 1974 amendments. I I can be of further assistance in your worthwhile and much needed educational program please let me know.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L.F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/8 8 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Jerry Yost. Mr. Yost would like to know of the permissibility under Federal regulations of a headlamp relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the u pper beam is activated. You enclosed some diagrams from Mr. Yost and asked for confirmation of his assessment that they would demonstrate that "the candela criterion in the existing regulations for high-beam" would be met "when low and high-beam are com bined."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the regulation governing the permissibility of relays allowing simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams on motor vehicle headlamps. The standar d specifies requirements for two generic types of headlamps, sealed beam (an indivisible unit encompassing the reflector, lens, and light source), and replaceable bulb (the replaceable in the event of burn out). Eight different types of sealed beam head lamps are permitted (denominated Types A through H), and three types of replaceable bulbs (He1, HB3, and HB4). However, in only one of the sealed beam systems is simultaneous operation of upper and lower beam specifically permitted, the Type F system (pa ragraph S4.5.12). Simultaneous beam operation is also permitted in replaceable bulb headlighting systems comprising four headlamps designed to conform to Type F photometry (S4.5.8, with Type F photometrics at Figure 15). Simultaneous operation of both beams is not a required feature of any of these systems but an option available to vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Mr. Yost's relay is permissible in any of these systems employing the simultaneous activation option.

However, simultaneous activation of both beams is explicitly prohibited in headlighting systems consisting of four replaceable bulb lamps designed to meet photometrics other than those of Type F (S4.5.8), and implicitly prohibited under the agency's inte rpretations of materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers relating to means of switching beams that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. These materials refer to operation of separate beams with no reference to joint operation. As I discussed with your Administrative Assistant, Mitch Stogner, the agency's principal historic concern with simultaneous

2 activation of lower and upper headlamp beams is that the maximum candlepower limitations established by the Federal vehicle lighting standard could be exceeded. These limitations are set forth in SAE Standard J579c, the photometric requirements applic able to all headlighting systems except those designed to meet Type F photometry. These photometrics were intentionally adopted to allow simultaneous activation without exceeding the overall candlepower limit deemed desirable for motor vehicle safety. Based upon its research, the agency has concluded that frontal lighting on motor vehicles should not exceed 150,000 candela when the lamps are activated. In addition, the Type F. photometrics establish maximum values for two lower beam test points in o rder to reduce the possibility of excessive foreground light and glare resulting from simultaneous use. The diagrams that Mr. Yost provided describe the installation and operation of the relay, measurement of 7" circular headlamps (Type D under Standard No. 108) with a mechanical aimer, and how various types of headlighting systems look on the front of cars. While we appreciate having the benefit of this information, only that pertaining to the design of the relay is relevant to permissibility of use with systems designed to meet Type F photometrics.

As Standard No. 108 does not specify the design of relay switches, Mr. Yost should be encouraged to contact motor vehicle manufacturers who may be interested in using headlighting systems designed to meet Type F photometrics with the option of simultaneo us activation of both beams. The agency has no present plan to modify Standard No. 108 to allow simultaneous use with any system employing photometrics other than Type F and, as indicated earlier, considers this a prohibited practice with other systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0034

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a (sic) safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.; Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b)(2) which makes it unlawful for 'an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not *equipped as required in this Code*.' (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the Code.; With respect to rear seat belts which most directly concern Mrs Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she correctly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.; Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have th authority to directly regulate motor vehicles 'after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard--and one which we shall consider--requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probably enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.; Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include 'vehicle operation' in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.; I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciat her interest in traffic safety.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director

ID: aiam0496

Dear Mr. Baringer: In your letter of November 23, 1971, you asked how your members coul make sure that the seat belts they install in their trucks conform to the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As far as the belts themselves are concerned, each belt made after the seat belt standard (No. 209) became effective in 1967 is required to (sic) marked with the year of manufacture. So long as the belt bears a date after 1967, it will have had to conform to the seat belt standard and your members should use the date as a guide in purchasing belts.; The provision of anchorages for the belts is a somewhat more comple problem. A new truck - manufactured after July 1, 1971 - is required to have anchorages for lap belts at all seating positions (and, in some cases, anchorages for shoulder belts). Although older trucks were sometimes provided with anchorages, many were not, and for these you will have to follow the location and instructions of Standard No. 210 in order to comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Although the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not establish strength requirements for anchorages, their strength should be of concern to you and in this area you may have to rely on the manufacturer, rather than the dealer, for advice on reinforcement of the vehicle structure.; Our legal staff is centralized in Washington and there are no fiel representatives of the agency who could assist you in matters relating to the standards. As much as we would like to send someone to address your group, the workload of the upcoming months prevents such a trip. However, we have found that many questions can be satisfactorily answered by letter. If your group could assemble a detailed list of questions, we will try to answer them as fully as possible.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0495

Dear Mr. Baringer: In your letter of November 23, 1971, you asked how your members coul make sure that the seat belts they install in their trucks conform to the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As far as the belts themselves are concerned, each belt made after the seat belt standard (No. 209) became effective in 1967 is required to (sic) marked with the year of manufacture. So long as the belt bears a date after 1967, it will have had to conform to the seat belt standard and your members should use the date as a guide in purchasing belts.; The provision of anchorages for the belts is a somewhat more comple problem. A new truck - manufactured after July 1, 1971 -is required to have anchorages for lap belts at all seating positions (and, in some cases, anchorages for shoulder belts). Although older trucks were sometimes provided with anchorages, many were not, and for these you will have to follow the location and instructions of Standard No. 210 in order to comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Although the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not establish strength requirements for anchorages, their strength should be of concern to you and in this area you may have to rely on the manufacturer, rather than the dealer, for advice on reinforcement of the vehicle structure.; Our legal staff is centralized in Washington and there are no fiel representatives of the agency who could assist you in matters relating to the standards. As much as we would like to send someone to address your group, the workload of the upcoming months prevents such a trip. However, we have found that many questions can be satisfactorily answered by letter. If your group could assemble a detailed list of questions, we will try to answer them as fully as possible.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2656

Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2657

Dear Mr. Klatt: This responds to your June 1, 1977, letter asking several question about the applicability of Federal safety standards to travel trailers and motor homes.; You first ask whether bed sheets and decorative bedspreads shipped wit a motor home are required to meet Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The items required to meet the standard are listed in S4.1 of the standard. That list does not include sheets or bedspreads. Therefore, they are not required to comply with the standard.; In a related question pertaining to Standard No. 302, you ask whethe 'mattress cover' as that term is used in the standard refers to the permanent mattress ticking or to a removable mattress cover. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the standard applies to both the permanent ticking and the removable cover. Therefore, both must comply with the requirements of Standard NO. 302.; In a question pertaining to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, yo ask whether it is permissible to label a bench seat 'not for occupancy while vehicle is in motion' on one label or whether a seat must be labeled at each seating position. Standard No. 207 requires only one label for a bench seat in a motor home. You should note that Standard No. 207 does not apply to travel trailers.; You ask whether the NHTSA has jurisdiction over safety-related defect in motor homes not covered by safety standards. The agency has general defect jurisdiction granted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) for all safety-related motor vehicle defects. The NHTSA's defect jurisdiction also extends to the nonoperational safety of a vehicle.; In a final question you ask whether the agency has jurisdiction ove travel trailers. The NHTSA has jurisdiction over 'any motor vehicle' which is defined in the Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...' Therefore, the NHTSA has jurisdiction over travel trailers that is identical to its jurisdiction over any other motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Perry McGlothan -- Quality Assurance Test Specialist, Century Products Company (Macedonia, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Perry McGlothan to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9495)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diame ter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the h ead impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assu rances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide infor mation that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and it subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the fut ure, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. (*1) S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5 .2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be c ontactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. B ased on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear

to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

* 1 We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in th e standard.