ID: aiam4034

Dear Ms. Jones: Thank you for your letter dated July 29, 1985 inquiring about Federa requirements applicable to children's car seat covers which you manufacture for sale as accessories to child restraint systems.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (the Act). Under the Act, the agency has issued Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. Paragraph S5.7 of that standard requires each material used in a child restraint system to conform to the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR Section 571.302). These flammability resistance requirements apply to *new* child restraint systems used in motor vehicles or aircraft. The flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers for child restraint systems only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install a seat cover for a child restraint system which does not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; However, aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed b child restraint owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, the agency urges all manufacturers of such seat covers to comply voluntarily with our safety standards.; A copy of Standard No. 302 is enclosed. I hope this information i helpful to you.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR., SNUG SEAT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 6-15-90 to E. T. Jones from N. B. Scott, Jr.; (OCC 4904); also attached to copy of photograph

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion on the procedures to be followed in testing a new car bed designed to transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position. Your letter and enclosed photograph indicate that you have tested the car bed with the six-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR S572.25. While the dummy's torso fits in the car bed, the legs did not. You state that "(a) dynamic crash test showed the dummy staying in the shell and the shell maintaining it's integrity." You asked whether this testing would be "adequate relative to the present standard."

By way of introduction, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simul ation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, includi ng such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

However, the agency can say that your company's decision to use the smallest test dummy included in Part 572 (the six month old test dummy) to conduct certification testing and to conduct the testing in accordance with the procedures specified in Standar d No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, appears reasonable. If that test dummy cannot be positioned entirely within the car bed, it also appears reasonable to position the

test dummy's head and torso completely within the car bed and allow the test dummy's feet and part of the legs to fall outside of the car bed. This is because S5.1.3.3 of Standard No. 213 requires all portions of the test dummy's head and torso to be ret ained within the confines of the car bed, so the head and torso must obviously begin within the car bed.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care, may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsib ility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam5484

"Dear Ms. Chamberlain: This responds to your letter asking about ho this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an emergency kit the size of an 'oversize notebook.' The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and possibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that there are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit. Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: Zimmer.rbm

Ms. Reneta Zimmerman
301 Golden Isles Drive, #407
Hallandale, Florida 33009

Dear Ms. Zimmerman:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes your concerns about placing your infant in front of the passenger-side air bag of your Mazda Miata. Since your vehicle has no back seat, NHTSA will grant an exemption to allow the dealer or a repair business to deactivate the passenger-side air bag. NHTSA is allowing this deactivation because an infant in a rear-facing child restraint should never be placed in front of an air bag and because it recognizes that you may be unable to replace your vehicle with a car equipped with a back seat.

If it is possible to retrofit your car with the installation of a manual cutoff switch, this option should be pursued rather than a total deactivation of the air bag. Mazda should be able to tell you if a manual cutoff switch is available for your vehicle.

If installation of a manual cutoff switch is not an option, you may choose to have your passenger-side air bag deactivated.

Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with air bags at the front outboard seating positions. The Federal law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has previously stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical and justified by public need, and that it would not begin enforcement proceedings.

Since your vehicle does not have any back seat, NHTSA will consider the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag as a

technical violation of the "make inoperative" provision that is justified by public need. Accordingly, it will not begin enforcement proceedings against any dealer or repair business which deactivates the passenger-side air bag.

Please note, however, that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, that the current and subsequent owners and occupants of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated once your child is old enough to ride safely in the front seat or when it is returned to the company which leases it.

In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts and to tell them that the passenger-side air bag has been deactivated.

I hope this letter resolves your problem. You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your car in for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:11/19/96

ID: nht73-5.22

DATE: 09/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: International Bicycle Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1973, to Dr. Gregory concerning your wish to import and sell an "electric moped".

Although you did not enclose a pamphlet on the Electra, we are familiar with the conventionally powered mopeds. Two-wheeled powered vehicles are "motorcycles" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and must comply with standards applicable to that category. In addition to Standard No. 108, standards applicable to motorcycle controls (No. 122) and brake systems (No. 123) became effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974, respectively. The standards are found in Table 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.

The manufacturer of the vehicle, or the importer as a statutory manufacturer, certifies on the basis of his own tests or other engineering information that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal standards at the time of its manufacture. The regulation for this requirement is Part 567 of Title 49. It is a self-certification procedure, subject to penalties for noncompliance, and no "approval" is obtained from this agency.

Part 555 of Title 49 Sets forth the procedures for applying for temporary exemption from any standard on one of four grounds. Of interest to you will be the exemption procedure for hardship and facilitation of development of low-emission vehicles.

I enclosed an information sheet telling you where you may obtain these materials.

ENC.

International Bicycle Corporation

August 21, 1973

Dr. James Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are enclosing a pamphlet on an electric moped sold on the East Coast as the Solo Electra, and intended to be sold on the West Coast as the International Electra. The units will be identical.

With the help of the California Motor Vehicles Department, we licensed our demonstrator model, only to find out later from the Highway Patrol that more requirements must be met.

We now understand that we must obtain certification that the Electra meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and also that it must conform to Federal Standard 108. We need to know what is involved in obtaining this certification. In addition, we were informed that the lights must be on the California approved list, which is a minor problem we can look after without difficulty.

In our opinion, an inexpensive electrically powered commuter vehicle replacing some use of automobiles is very desirable from many points of view. However, we do not feel that it will become a volume item for some time, and doubt that 1000 annually will be sold for the next few years. Therefore, while we would like to import and sell these Electras, we are not in a position to go to a great deal of expense in meeting standards which Honda, and other major manufacturers can handle without difficulty.

We would appreciate knowing what must be done so that we can weigh the costs against sales potential, and drop this project if it appears to be too difficult or too expensive.

A. E. Davies Vice President

ID: 1982-2.21

DATE: 07/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tri-City Tires, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.

Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR @ 574.5 that "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable." Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.

In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 1980 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.

The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol on retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is @ 574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.

I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you alluded in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ENC.

TRI-CITY TIRES, INC.

June 11, 1982

Steven Kratzke U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Steve,

I am writing, per your request, in reference to our conversation concerning the clarification of correspondence dated Sept. 29, 1980 to Elgene Tire Co. of Union, N.J. This letter is to ask your clarification and determination of paragraph 4, (used tires vs retreaded tires), that are requested by the customer to be installed on new equipment. Per your statement to me on June 11, 1982 there is a misrepresentation of interpretation concerning the use of used tires and retreaded tires. Please send me a clarification of this issue as soon as possible, so this problem can be solved once and for all.

John I. Kitchen

ID: aiam5363

"Dear Mr. Fabrycky: This responds to your letter about an aftermarke product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires 'manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously.' Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product. Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product. Additionally, you are not required to get 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles: The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985) It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied 'in many directions simultaneously.' Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4500

"Dear Ms. Gelburd: This is a response to your letter of January 12 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to 'cushion and insulate the child.' The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will 'contravene or compromise' Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to 'determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction.' Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' as: ...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle. In determining whether an item is an 'accessory,' the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an 'accessory,' and, therefore, is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad. Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.) If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would 'render inoperative' a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was 'rendered inoperative.' Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect. However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation. Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials 'Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic,' D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems. I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a 'warning label' to the product. Please understand that this explanation is not an agency 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0138

Dear Mr. Hadekel:#Thank you for your letter of January 1, 1969 concerning your windshield washer system.#Apparently our letter of October 3, 1968, to Mr. B. C. Johnson was misunderstood. In Mr. Johnson's inquiry of August 23, 1968, he stated 'it is easy to deliver 15 cc's of fluid inside the three seconds specified.' The wording of our reply acknowledged that this performance would be acceptable--it was not intended to be a literal interpretation of our requirements or the SAE Recommended Practice.#We learned that the SAE Windshield Wiping Subcommittee plans to revise J942, Passenger Car Windshield Washer Systems, to clarify the particular points you question. Meanwhile, we think the intent of Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is satisfied by the following interpretation of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice:#>>>1. Paragraph 3.1 of J942 requires that 75% of the effective wiped area be cleared in 10 wiper cycles or less. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 104 requires that these areas be established in accordance with subparagraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104.#2. The requirement to wipe 75% clear must also be met within 15 seconds as stipulated in paragraph 4.1.3(c) of J942.#3. A washer cycle is defined in paragraph 2.11 of J942 as 'The system actuation sufficient to deliver approximately 15 cc of fluid to the windshield glazing surface.' Note this definition does not actually define the number of actuations necessary to deliver the 15 cc, although the use of the word 'actuation' *appears* to be singular. It is obvious that the intent of paragraph 4.1.3(c) is that this amount of fluid shall be delivered during the 15 second test period.#4. In paragraph 4.4.2(b) of J942 (under the durability test) the Recommended Practice requires: 'For manual systems a single actuation shall consist of actuation of the control for a period not to exceed 3 seconds.' It is important to note that this specifies the time required for the driver to operate the control--not the total time for the washer system to actuate. It appears this definition refers to a *control actuation*, whereas, the definition for 'washer cycle' refers to a *system actuation*. This is borne out in paragraph 2.2 of J942 which defines 'control' as 'A means for actuating the arresting the windshield washer system. The actuation may be coordinated or semi-coordinated with components of the windshield wiper or may be fully independent.'#5. Note that the following sentence in paragraph 4.4.2(b) states: 'For automatic systems an actuation shall consist of one actuation of the control.' This seems to indicate, by inference, that more than one control actuation is acceptable for manual systems.#6. Therefore, the intent of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice by Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is that manual washer systems may be actuated more than once to provide the 15 cc of fluid as long as it does not require the operator more than 3 seconds to operate the control for any single system actuation--and the washer system must deliver 15 cc of fluid to clear 75% of the wiped area within 10 cycles and within 15 seconds.#7. Note that any additional system actuations needed to meet the 15 cc requirement will also require that the manufacturer increase accordingly the total number of control actuations for the durability test in Table I, 'Test Sequence' in J942.<<<#We assume that your windshield washing system meets these requirements based upon your explanation of your manual system. However, we wish to point out our concern that the existing regulations do not adequately define washer system performance requirements, since it is possible under the current regulations for the driver to be needlessly occupied with the washer controls during a period of reduced visibility. Accordingly, we expect to up-grade the washer system performance requirements as soon as practicable.#Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht89-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/27/89

FROM: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO, JAPAN

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD OF NHTSA TO SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

According to SAE J587 Oct 81 6.5 and Fig. 3 which is quoted by present FMVSS No. 108, it says,

This angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

In order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, we understand that only the distance "1" between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance "m" nor "n". (See Fig. A of attached paper.) This also means that in the case of round and dome shaped license plate light (Fig. B), you will easily find only one point "p" as the farthest point. But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane as described in Fig. C or D, how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them? We also have same question for E and F.

It will be very much appreciated if you could give us a clear discrimination.

Yours faithfully,

ATTCH: [ATTACHED DIAGRAM OMITTED]