ID: aiam3488

Dear Mr. Fisher: This responds to your letter of September 17, 1981, requesting NHTSA' confirmation that certain small, utility-type vehicles to be produced by General Motors would be classified as 'light trucks' for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. In your letter you point out that these future vehicles, at least in base form excluding optional rear seats, would have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger- carrying volume, a criterion for classifying vehicles as light trucks under our regulations.; As you correctly note, SAE Recommended Practice J1100a specifies tha cargo and passenger volumes are to be determined on the basis of a 'base' vehicle, i.e., one without optional equipment. Further, EPA regulations set forth in 40 CFR 600.315-79(c) provide that all dimensions and volumes are to be determined from base vehicles without options, for purposes of grouping vehicles in classes of comparable vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, neither the SAE Practice nor the EPA provision explicitly apply to the determination of cargo-carrying volume for utility vehicles under our vehicle classification regulations in 49 CFR Part 523. Those regulations are silent on the issue of the inclusion of options for determining interior volume.; Nevertheless, to achieve uniform treatment for passenger automobile and light trucks and to reduce the complexity of accounting for different variations of vehicles sold based on optional equipment, we interpret Part 523 to require that vehicle classification be determined on the basis of the vehicle without optional equipment installed. Therefore, we agree that two-wheel drive utility vehicles which are truck derivatives and which, in base form, have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume should be classified as light trucks for fuel economy purposes.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 2874o

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

Dear Mr. Friedman:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:7/8/88

ID: nht88-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD FRIEDMAN -- PRESIDENT-LIABILITY RESEARCH, INC.

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety

Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your "Premie Cradle" product.

By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a "modified" Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 21 3. You state further that a restraint system you call "One-ride" also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the "One-ride" restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the Apri l 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency; a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy; and submiss ions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of

less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as o ne of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a wa y as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely; and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the syste m, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance.

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

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

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

performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR @ 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended "for use by children in a weight range that includes ch ildren weighing not more than 20 pounds.") That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17. 4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specifie d 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems.

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

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

While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard.

Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum.

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

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

ID: nht95-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 LETTER FROM LEE RABIE TO NHTSA (OCC 10732); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rabie:

This responds to your letter of February 15, 1995, requesting information on any Federal regulations concerning recycling or remanufacturing vehicle air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized 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, however, does not approve moto r vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards at the time of the product's first purchase for purp oses other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the product.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires that many vehicles provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect th eir occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. One type of automatic crash protection currently offered on new vehicles is air bags. A recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers are not required to certify that air bags, as items of equipment, meet any motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S9 of Standard No. 208 specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you could not sell a recycled or remanufactured air bag with these compo nents replaced unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

It is unclear from your letter if the recycled or remanufactured air bags will be reinstalled in the original vehicle or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags for other vehicles with deployed air bags or as retrofit air bags for vehicles w hich do not have air bags as original equipment. Therefore, I will discuss these scenarios separately.

Re-installation or installation in a vehicle with a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explain ed in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. Howev er, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or re pair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a recycled or remanufactured air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letter s, Federal law does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law d oes not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the cras h sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using recycled or remanufactured air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

Installation in a motor vehicle which did not originally have an air bag.

A Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Finally, as a manufacturer of replacement parts, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If y ou have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam1750

Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your request for consideration of Mr. George H Dobson's December 27, 1974, request for reconsideration of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, because of its costs.; Standard No. 121 requires that newly-manufactured air-braked vehicle stop from speeds of up to 60 mph on wet and dry surfaces in the loaded and unloaded condition, without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane and without lockup of wheels above 10 mph. These performance requirements are based on a safety need for improved braking performance on air brake- equipped highway vehicles. Controlled stopping within the traffic lane is particularly important to tractor-trailer combinations to avoid 'jackknife' skids. The incompatibility of vehicle sizes can be reduced significantly by establishing equal stopping distances for trucks and passenger cars.; We have analyzed the costs and benefits to be gained in upgradin truck, bus, and trailer braking performance and have concluded that the savings in lives, injury, and property damage justify the incremental costs of this standard. Standard 121 does not require retrofit of vehicles manufactured prior to the standard's effective date.; From a cost standpoint, it is noteworthy that the arguments fo increased weight limits for commercial vehicles relied, in part, on the increased braking performance of vehicles which meet Standard No. 121. A major reason for the heavier vehicles would be to reduce the costs of transportation, and Standard No. 121 contributes directly to that goal.; As you may be aware, the NHTSA has in fact proposed postponement of th standard due to the current economic situation. Based on several hundred comments, there was persuasive evidence that a delay at this late date would create far greater dislocation in the automotive industry than would a January 1, 1975, implementation. A copy of our decision not to postpone the standard is enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0701

Dear Mr. Quinn: This is in reply to your letter of May 5 on behalf of your client Le Ross. Mr. Ross has developed a motor vehicle deceleration warning system that, as described by you, activates two amber lights on the rear of a vehicle. Your letter indicate that these lamps would be incorporated into a vehicle back-up lamp system and that Mr. Ross envisions his system as an aftermarket accessory item rather than as new vehicle original equipment. You state your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would not preclude marketing the system as an aftermarket accessory, and that back-up lamps are required to be white in color. You ask our advice whether Standard No. 108 prohibits amber lamps in the back-up lighting system and, if so, whether a proposal for amendment of the Standard to allow the system would be feasible.; Standard No. 108 would in certain instances preclude the aftermarke sale of an amber deceleration warning system incorporated into a back-up lamp system. Standard No. 108 as of January 1, 1972, does cover certain aftermarket equipment items, and in some instances would preclude the sale of a back-up light system with amber lamps. Lighting equipment manufactured on or after that date as replacement for similar equipment on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, must meet Standard No. 108 which, as you have noted, requires that the color of the back-up lamps be white. Federal law would not preclude sale of this system for use on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, or purchase of an amber system by the owner of a vehicle manufactured after that date if he wished to change over from a white to amber system. As a practical matter, however, I believe That(sic) virtually every State has a requirement that back-up lamps be white, and that a back-up light with amber bulbs or lenses would be forbidden. Standard No. 108 would not preclude sale of the Ross System as a separate lighting device. I do not know what position the States would take on such a matter.; Our research contracts on deceleration warning system indicate tha further development and testing under field conditions is necessary before specific proposals can be made by NHTSA. Therefore, I do not think action on a proposal by Mr. Ross would be feasible at this time, though we would welcome his comments to our Docket 69-19 as a comment to be considered in future rulemaking on this subject.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1984, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You noted that section S4.1(e) of the standard provides that "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant. . . ." [Emphasis added]. You asked whether the standard would permit a seat belt assembly with two buckles as shown in the schematic attached to your letter. The answer is that while Standard No. 209 would permit such an assembly, whether such an assembly can be installed in a particular vehicle is determined by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of occupants in a crash. Section S4.1.2.3.1 provides that Type 2 lap and shoulder belt systems used in passenger cars must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. Likewise, S4.2.2 provides that certain trucks and buses with Type 2 belts must have a nondetachable shoulder belt. The belt system you illustrated in your diagram consists of one continuous loop of webbing which serves as both the lap and shoulder belt. However, your design provides a separate buckle for the shoulder anchorage and thus an occupant could release the shoulder buckle and use the belt solely as a lap belt. Thus, we would not consider your design to have a nondetachable shoulder belt.

In addition, section S7.2 of the standard sets requirements for the latch mechanism of non-automatic seat belt assemblies used in passenger cars and certain trucks and buses. Section S7.2(c) requires that the latch mechanism used in those vehicles must release at a single point. Therefore, a two buckle system could not be used in those vehicles.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 19, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

This is to ask for your confirmation that a design of seat belt assembly having two buckles is allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209.

Section S4.1(e) of the standard sets forth "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant . . . . .". Based on that provision, we believe that FMVSS 209 permits such a seat belt design as shown in the schematic enclosed as long as they meet all the applicable provisions in the regulation.

We should appreciate your confirmation letter.

Very truly yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.;

Hiroshi Shimizu, Asst. Manager -- Overseas Operations Dept.

Encl.

(Graphics omitted)

Schematic of Seat Belt Assembly having Two Buckles

ID: nht75-6.29

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: JAMES C. SCHULTZ -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: N40-30 KK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Riechel:

This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1975, inquiring as to the permissibility under Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, of offering for sale new vehicles equipped with louvers affixed to the outside of the rear window without installing a rearview mirror on the passenger side.

Standard 111 requires that an outside rearview mirror of substantially unit magnification be installed on the passenger side of a vehicle where the field of view provided by the inside rearview mirror is obscured by objects other than seated occupants or head restraints. Based upon the information contained in your letter, it appears that the louver affixed to the rear window obstructs the view to the rear provided by the inside mirror. Since this louver does not fall within the two exceptions named in S3.1.1 of the standard (seated occupants and head restraints), a passenger side rearview mirror would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the standard.

The fact that the obstruction is only slight does not affect this determination, since the standard is clear on the point that the only obscurity allowable is that caused by occupants or head restraints.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-7.48

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Ronald L. Signorino -- Director, Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs, Universal Maritime Service Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: VIA FAX: 202 366 3820

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/19/93 from John Womack to Ronald L. Signorino (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I write representing Maersk Line, Inc., a shipping corporation having considerable interests in intermodal transportation issues worldwide.

Maersk Line is poised to have production begun on a very large number of intermodal container chassis. They will be fabricated by manufacturers in the United States. Indeed, Maersk Line's purchasing representatives are due to view prototype chassis next week; authorization to begin actual production is expected at that time.

Desiring to remain consistent with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Conspicuity Rule, Maersk Line sought the assistance of Selecto- Flash, Inc., of Orange, New Jersey. Selecto-Flash has for some time serviced the marking, stenciling, and decaling needs of intermodal interests, and was thought to be well-positioned in determining proper routes of compliance with the conspicuity requirements.

To that end, they had been in contact with FHWA and had been given advice relative to the conspicuity marking of intermodal container chassis. Once in receipt of that advice Selecto-Flash shared it with Maersk Line, hoping to provide them with the benefit of FHWA's considered interpretation. Subsequently, Selecto-Flash received a letter from you dated October 20, 1993, in which you reversed that FHWA interpretation. That reversal gives rise to this communication in which I, as the individual responsible for regulatory issues to this firm's parent, Maersk Line, Inc., am compelled to gain a clearer understanding of FHWA's conspicuity position. This is necessary so that Maersk Line may effectively act next week in approving prototype versions of U.S. manufactured intermodal container chassis.

My understanding can be gained by providing you with a set of given facts and posing one question.

Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax), your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo;

Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered as an appropriate site; and

Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is

solely relevant.

Question: Are the foregoing facts right, or wrong?

Please appreciate, Mr. Womack, that the timeliness of your response is important to all parties concerned in this matter. Given the contrasting nature of positions on this matter emanating from FHWA, I know you will make every effort to be sympathetic to Maersk Line's production schedule. With kindest regards.

ID: nht95-6.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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