ID: nht76-5.6

DATE: 01/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Nolan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products has been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their "safety shell" child carrier as follows: a child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.

Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, regulates certain safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.

Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for the padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A "child proof" system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.

As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires that installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.

The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standard that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.

SINCERELY,

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

December 29, 1975

Brenda Nolan

Dear Ms. Nolan:

The Consumer Affairs Division of the California Attorney General's Office has forwarded a copy of your letter concerning a children's car seat manufactured by Peterson Baby Products to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Commission has jurisdiction to regulate children's car seats under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. However, it is our understanding that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation now has in effect safety regulations for children's restraint systems used in motor vehicles. The NHTSA Chief Counsel has informed us that NHTSA will issue in the near future an amendment to its existing standard for children's restraint systems (FMVSS #213).

Because of NHTSA's expertise in this matter, we have forwarded your letter to them for consideration and investigation of the safety problems described in your letter.

Michael A. Brown General Counsel

CC: OFC. OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA; OFC. OF THE ATTY. GENERAL

PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE PURCHASED TWO PETERSON SAFETY SHELLS, ONE IN DECEMBER 1974, THE OTHER IN APRIL 1975. THIS LETTER DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT'S FAILURES WHICH HAVE MADE THE SHELLS ALMOST UNUSABLE, AND ASKS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION ON YOUR PART.

OUR MAJOR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE TODDLER SYSTEM, WHICH OUR YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CLIMB OUT OF SINCE SHE WAS 9 1/2 MONTHS OLD. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS SHE SHOULD BE IN IT FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR. ALSO, THE CAR SEATBELT MUST BE STRAPPED SO TIGHTLY AROUND THE GUARD OF THE TODDLER SYSTEM, THAT IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER TO TIGHTEN IT OR SHE SIMPLY PUSHES IT OUT OF POSITION. THIS IS A FINGER PINCHER. . . AND PROBABLY NOT VERY SAFE. OUT OF NECESSITY SHE IS NOW IN THE CHILD SYSTEM, WITH THE CHILD'S HARNESS WHICH IS MUCH TOO LARGE, AND A FAILING PAD AND ALL.

OUR SECOND COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PADS. THE SNAPS ON BOTH PADS HAVE PULLED OUT IN VARIOUS PLACES, ALLOWING THE PADS TO MOVE AROUND, PUTTING STRESS ON THE SLITS FOR THE HARNESS SYSTEM. THIS HAS RIPPED THE SLITS. ONE PAD WAS COMPLETELY DESTROYED IN NINE MONTHS AND THE OTHER WILL BE SHORTLY IN SIX MONTHS. ANOTHER OBSERVATION: THERE WAS SKIMPING ON THE LENGTH OF THE PAD AND THE KIND OF FABRIC USED IS IMPROPER FOR THIS KIND OF THING. ALSO, OUR IN-LAW'S NEW SHELL LASTED THREE WEEKS UNTIL THE COVERING ON ONE WING SPLIT WIDE OPEN.

BECAUSE THESE SEATS ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FOUR YEARS, WE FEEL PETERSON SHOULD REPLACE THE TWO PADS ON OUR SEATS. WE LOOK FOREWARD TO A PROMPT REPLY FROM YOU ON THESE REPLACEMENTS.

OUR THIRD COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE DIRECTIONS FOR FASTENING THE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. ACCORDING TO YOUR DIRECTIONS THIS STRAP IS VERY EASILY LOSSENED TO CREATE LOTS OF SLACK, SIMPLY, BY PULLING THE END OF THE STRAP. THIS WE CONSIDER VERY SERIOUS ENCLOSED ARE OUR REVISED DIRECTIONS IN WHICH YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

OUR FOURTH COMPLAINT: THE HARNESS SYSTEMS ARE DIFFICULT TO ADJUST TO DIFFERENT THICKNESSES OF OUTER CLOTHING. WHILE WE'RE UNFORTUNATE TO LIVE IN A CLIMATE WHERE IT MAY BE 80 DEGREES ONE DAY AND 35 DEGREES THE NEXT, CAN'T THESE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE EASIER? MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS HARD TO GET THE BABY OUT OF THE INFANT SYSTEM QUICKLY IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE WHOLE SHELL. ALSO, THE CLASP ON THE CHILD'S HARNESS IS A (ILLEGIBLE WORDS). SAAB. WE PREFER THE VOLKSWAGEN. ONLY WE CAN'T FIT BOTH SEATS INTO THE BACK AS THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE RESTRAINT STRAP STUD FOR RIGHT REAR POSITIONING.

UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO WE WERE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE TODDLER AND CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS. EXCEPT FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE PAD AND AWKWARD ADJUSTMENT OF THE HARNESS, THE CHILD'S SYSTEM IS OK. WE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT THE TODDLER SYSTEM NOR MUCH ABOUT THE INFANT SYSTEM.

OUR CHILDREN ARE NEITHER OVERLY ACTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE, YET THE PADS LASTED ONLY NINE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS RESPECTIVELY. AGAIN, WE ASK FOR REPLACEMENT PADS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WE LOOK FOREWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU AND RESOLVING THIS MATTER.

SINCERELY,

BRENDA NOLAN

COPIES TO: CHILD WORLD, CHELMSFORD, MASS; CONSUMER REPORTS, MT. VERNON, N.Y.; CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIV., ATTY. GEN.'S OFC., BOSTON, MASS.

Our directions for the side restraint strap.

Seatbelt anchor

(Graphics omitted)

CONSUMER AFFAIRS DIVISION ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BOSTON, MASS.

OCTOBER 21, 1975

DEAR SIRS:

WE HAVE JUST WRITTEN A LETTER TO PETERSON BABY PRODUCTS, P.O. BOX 3974, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, 91605. WE THOUGH THAT OUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CAR SEAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO YOU. THEREFORE WE ARE ENCLOSING A COPY OF THAT LETTER.

BRENDA NOLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peterson Baby Products

December 5, 1975

GENTLEMEN: The Consumer Protection Unit of the Attorney General's Office has received the enclosed complaint relating to your firm. We understand that there are always two sides to a problem, and we would appreciate your prompt review of this matter.

We do not represent the complainant. However, we analyze all complaints to determine whether grounds exist for legal action under California consumer protection laws. Your response to each of the factual allegations in the complaint will help us determine whether legal action on our part is warranted.

We would appreciate receiving your response within the next thirty days. We also request that you send a copy of your response to the complainant. Please feel free to attach any documents which you think are relevant in explaining your position. Naturally in sending you this complaint, we make no assumption to the truth of the allegations.

EVELLE J. YOUNGER Attorney General

Consumer Protection Analyst

cc: CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

ID: 1985-01.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 636 Girard Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052-1885

This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi-rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue,the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.

You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 to this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S8.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.

At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.

Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all belt systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.

The second question you asked was whether the language specified in section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: "Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child." Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: "Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked."

Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, which again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substansive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SKratzke:426-2992:cyb:12/26/84 NOA-30:Subj/Chron NOA-30-:SKratzke NRM-01 NFF-01 Interps. Std. 213 Redbook OCC 1514 and 1534

Vladislav Radovich Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Radovich,

A belated thank you for your time and help during our visit last August 15 to discuss the Fisher-Price Car Seat under development. Your comments were very helpful and we are now preparing for production of, we feel, the most convenient and one of the safest Car Seats available.

We do have several requests for you and your legal department. We would like a ruling on the application of Standard 213 Test Procedure S6.1.2.4 specifying snugly adjusted belts. Our means of restraining the child in the Car Seat consists of a semi-rigid T-shaped shield with a buckle built into the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the sitting surface. Two shoulder belts emerge from the top of the shield and run through slots in the seat back where they attach non-adjustably to a connector bar. This bar is sewn into a single belt running up the back from an automatic locking set belt retractor mounted under the sitting surface.

The retractor applies a constant spring tension to the belt at all times. A mechanical override, activated when the buckle is detached from the tongue, allows the belt to pay out. Thus, the user can pull an excess length of shoulder strap while installing or removing a child. With the buckle attached to the tongue, the retractor automatically locks so that no belt can be pulled out, only slack taken up.

At this point, the semi-rigid shield stands somewhat clear of the child, resisting the pull of the retractor winding spring. The instructions will direct the user to "push the shield toward th child for a snug but comfortable fit and the belt slack will be taken up." Because of the racheting mechanism in the retractor, slack is taken up in increments of one-half to three quarters of an inch. Therefore, there may be up to 3/4 of an inch of slack in the belt system that cannot be taken out. Although we expect this condition to meet Standard 213 requirements, it precludes the application of the procedure specifying snugly adjusted belts. Barbara Kelleher of Calspan Corporation has requested this ruling for the compliance tests they will be running.

Also, since the use of a retractor is not addressed in Standard 213, we would appreciate a ruling or statement regarding the acceptability of our approach. We have chosen the automatic locking approach because we believe it offers the highest degree of safety. Will you please refer these requests to your legal department for us?

Also, during Dave Campbell's and my visit with you last August to review the product, the acceptability of a recess in the upper back surface was questioned. We feel there was agreement during the meeting that the protrusion limitation (S5.2.4) does not apply. In a telephone conversation with you a few days later, it was agreed that the area is in compliance with S5.2.2.1 since the system has a continuous back support surface greater than 85 square inches below the recess in question. I believe these were the only points in question.

Sincerely,

FISHER-PRICE DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS

Barry Merten Sr. Product Development Engineer /mam

ID: aiam0986

Dear Mr. Sears: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Dr. Edward H Wallace, concerning your objections to the informal rulemaking procedures employed by NHTSA in adding new tire sizes and rims to the Appendices to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 (49 CFR 571.109,110). You enclose two form letters sent to you by NHTSA which indicate that certain tire sizes and rims will be included in the Appendices, and object to the delay that appears to occur between your receipt of these letters and the time the amendment to the Appendices is published in the *Federal Register*.; Your letter indicates a possible misunderstanding of the requirement affect the publication of new tire sizes and rims in the Appendices of the two safety standards. The NHTSA is required, under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), to amend all motor vehicle safety standards (amendments to the appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 are amendments to the standards) by publication if the *Federal Register*. The submittal of documents to the Federal Register is governed by regulation (Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1-40) which the NHTSA must follow in submitting documents for publication. Simply stated, these regulations would not permit the NHTSA to merely send to the *Federal Register* copies of these acknowledgment letters, for publication, as you suggest. Documents must be prepared utilizing a specific format. We have recently modified the method by which NHTSA amends the Appendices in a way that permits these documents to be prepared in a shorter time. Moreover, normally notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment is required to be published before such amendments can become effective. The procedures about which you complain actually shorten the time that would otherwise be necessary for these changes to take effect. The form letter which you refer to as providing approval is no more than an acknowledge and indicates only that the tire size designation and rim sizes in question will be included in the next amendment to the Appendices, under the special procedures which allow their use in 30 days if objections are not received. For these reasons, we have not found it administratively practicable to publish notices of additional tire sizes whenever they may be received. We have indicated our intention to publish amendments quarterly. While we have not met this schedule as consistently as we hoped, we expect to improve our efforts in this regard in the future.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1472

Dear Mr. Hughes: This responds to your April 23, 1974, request for an explanation of th meaning and use of the term 'Gross axle weight rating' (GAWR) in Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The concept of GAWR and 'Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) ar interrelated, and the two terms are defined as follows:; >>>'Gross axle weight rating' or 'GAWR' means the value specified b the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.; 'Gross vehicle weight rating' or 'GVWR' means the value specified b the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.<<<; In both cases it is the manufacturer who specifies the values, and h is free to specify whatever values he himself decides are correct. Both the NHTSA in its compliance tests, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety on the road, will judge the vehicle on the basis of the values assigned. Therefore it is in the interest of the manufacturer to assign values which accurately reflect the load-bearing ability of the vehicle and its suspension.; The sum of the GAWR's must at least equal the specified GVWR to avoi overloading the axle systems, and the GAWR sum may, of course, exceed the GVWR. Typically the manufacturer balances the commercial advantage of specifying a higher GVWR against the expense of higher GAWR's.; The GAWR is measured at the tire-ground interfaces which means that th tires, wheels, brakes and suspension components are included in the determination. Typically an axle assembly is rated by its manufacturer, who takes into account the braking ability of the axle to stop the load. Although this factor should always have been taken into consideration, the advent of Standard 121 may cause axle and brake manufacturers to reassess the values they have assigned to brake systems in the past.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 7171

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . ." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: nht92-7.27

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7171)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamp lamps..." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not

meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

ID: nht93-7.53

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Toshi Tanaka -- General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept., Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/4/93 from Toshi Tanaka to Delmas Johnson

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type I (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with

the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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.

ID: 8999

Mr. Toshi Tanaka
General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept.
Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.
1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 103, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:11/5/93

ID: nht95-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 13, 1995 EST

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

TO: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/28/94 letter from Melinda Dresser to Mary Versailles

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dresser:

This responds to your letter of November 28, 1994, concerning seats with swivel bases. You noted that, in a November 25, 1992 letter to Ms. Frances Parton, we stated that there is no express prohibition in Federal law against installing a seat with a sw ivel base. You asked for a "current written determination" of that issue. This letter confirms that there is still no express prohibition in Federal law against installing a seat with a swivel base.

As explained in our November 1992 letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. @ 30101 et seq.). Manuf acturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

A manufacturer must consider three safety standards if a seat with a swivel base is installed in a vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirement s for seat belt anchorages. Nothing in these standards expressly prohibits a seat with a swivel base. Instead, a seat with a swivel base must comply with the same standards as other seats.

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.

ID: nht94-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Reidar Brekke -- Market Analyst, Norwegian Trade Council

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/94 from Reidar Brekke to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC-10095)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the legality of "Belly Safe," a device to alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on pregnant women. As described in the material yo u enclosed, two long straps attached to the "Belly Safe" are attached around the back of the seat. The occupant then sits on the "Belly Safe," attaches the safety belt, brings two straps from the "Belly Safe" up between the legs, and attaches the lap be lt through the velcro on those straps.

The following discussion explains the effect of our regulations on such products and concerns NHTSA has about this specific product.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning de vices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) appl ies to new seat belt assemblies. Because the "Belly Safe" is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to the device.

While none of these standards apply to the "Belly Safe," the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding. In addition, while it is unlikely that the "Belly Safe" would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer,

2

distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

NHTSA is concerned that the "Belly Safe" could be used in a way that adversely affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to t he occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. The "Belly Safe" places an object between the l egs of the occupant. This change in the distribution of crash forces could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about the "Belly Safe." The realigning of the lap belt through the "Belly Safe" could increase the amount of webbing in the belt system. If the straps which attach around the back of the seat or the Velcro holding the lap belt a re unable to withstand the forces of a crash, there would be excessive slack in the lap belt. Slack in the lap belt would increase the risk of the occupant sliding under the lap belt (submarining) and slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, both of which would increase the risk of injury. In addition, should a non-pregnant occupant use the "Belly Safe," the device could do more harm than good.

I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Pregnancy: Protecting Your Unborn Child in a Car." This sheet explains that the lap belt should be placed low, across the hips and over the upper things. If a woman takes the time to adjust the belt a s recommended (an action also needed to install the "Belly Safe"), NHTSA is unaware of any need for a device to keep the lap belt in this position.

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.