ID: aiam0318

Dear Mr. Schwentker: This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1971, in which yo enclosed a request for clarification, on behalf of Rolls-Royce, Ltd., of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Essentially, the question was whether a 'European type combined lap and diagonal strap seat belt assembly with retractor' could be furnished instead of the 'Type 1 seatbelt assembly' specified in the second protection option on passenger cars manufactured from August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.; Standard No. 208 does not permit this substitution. The key feature o the second option in the August 1973-August 1975 period is that the manufacturer must design his vehicles so that the front seat occupants are protected from injury when restrained with lap belts only, and provide lap belts for all occupants that may, at least, be separately usable as such. A detachable upper torso belt may be provided at the manufacturer's option. The basis for this requirement is the well-documented finding that a much larger percentage of the American public will fasten lap belts than will use upper torso belts, whether the latter are of the detachable or the combination type.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3541

Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your letter asking whether your new wiping syste design meets the frequency requirements of Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing System*.; By way of background information, I would point out that the agenc does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; The system described in your letter operates on two settings. One o the settings provides continuous operation at a speed of about 75 cycles per minute. The wipers operate at the same speed for the second setting, but there is intermittence between each cycle. Because of the intermittence, the wipers operate only about 45 cycles per minute. As explained below, it is our opinion that such a system meets the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104.; Section S4.1.1 reads as follows: >>>S4.1.1 *Frequency*. S4.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall have at least tw frequencies or speeds.; S41.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at least 45 cycles per minut regardless of engine load and engine speed.; S41.1.3 Regardless of engine speed and engine load, the highest and on lower frequency or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and engine load.; S4.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraph S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may b demonstrated by testing under the conditions specified in section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.; The primary issue for this interpretation is whether the system meet the requirement in section S4.1.1.1 for 'at least two frequencies or speeds.' This issue arises because the wipers operate at the same speed for the two settings, using intermittence to achieve a different number of cycles per minute. It is our opinion that the system does meet this requirement, since the language of the standard speaks of frequencies *or* speeds. While the speed may be the same for the two settings, the frequencies are different.; The system satisfies the requirements in section S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1. that one cycle or speed be at least 45 cycles per minute, that the highest and lowest frequency or speed differ by at least 15 cycles per minute, and that the lower cycle be at least 20 cycles per minute (assuming that the requirements are met regardless of engine load and engine speed).; While your wiping system design appears to meet the frequenc requirements of Standard No. 104, we do have a possible concern about its safety. On its lower setting, between the periods of intermittence, the speed of the wiper blades would still be at a rate of about 75 cycles per minute. It is possible that operation at such a fast speed might cause chattering of the wipers when used during light precipitation. If that happened, drivers might be less likely to use their wipers during light precipitation. We suggest that you consider that possibility before going forward with your design.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4658

"Dear Mr. Kimmelman: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinso of this office. I regret the delay in responding. You express your understanding that Standard No. l08 'allows vehicles with combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps to operate in either of two modes when both the hazard switch and brake switch have been actuated.' You have expressed these two modes as follows: 'l. The hazard switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps. a. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will cause the rear lamps to change from steady on, stop signal, to flashing, hazard signal. b. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will not change the flashing lamps, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal. 2. The brake switch is the major control for operation of the combined rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps. a. Actuating the brake switch some period of time after actuation of the hazard switch will cause the rear lamps to change from flashing, hazard signal, to steady on, stop signal. The front flashing hazard lamps will also become steady on. b. Actuating the hazard switch some period of time after actuation of the brake switch will not change the rear steady on lamps, stop signal, to flashing, hazard, while the front hazard lamps go from off to steady on.' You ask for confirmation of your understanding, and if it is correct, whether NHTSA is presently considering rulemaking 'to specify a specific signal from the combined function rear stop and turn signal/hazard lamps when both the hazard and brake switches are actuated.' Neither of these modes are correct, for the reasons discussed below. Initially we note that systems with combined-function lamps are those that use red lenses for the rear turn signals lamps, and not the amber lenses that Standard No. l08 allows. The second point we wish to make is that you may have confused hazard warning lamps with turn signal lamps. The basic Federal requirements for stop lamps are those of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August l970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. Paragraph 4.2 of J586c states 'When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing.' The identical provision is found in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September l970, which is also incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. This clearly means that a turn signal cannot be overriden by a stop lamp. In addition, you should note that regulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety forbid the optical combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp unless the stop lamp function is deactivated when the turn signal lamp is activated (49 CFR 393.22(b)(2). Assuming, however, that you meant hazard warning system lamps, there is no provision in Standard No. l08 for hazard warning system operation (those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l968, incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08) specifying priority of operation with respect to the stop lamp system. Because paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. l08 requires the stop lamps to be activated upon application of the service brakes, we interpret this as allowing the stop lamp system to override the hazard warning system. This opinion, of course, relates only to the rear lamps. The hazard warning system at the front of a vehicle must operate at any time the system is actuated. In response to your question about the possibility of rulemaking, please note that the agency does not plan any rulemaking on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht73-2.34

DATE: 11/07/73

FROM: R.B. DYSON -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN G. WOMACK

TO: Missouri Automobile Dealers Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1973, concerning the legality of disconnecting seat belt interlocks.

The interlock is a required item of safety equipment that must be operable on any new car when it is sold or offered for sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. After an interlock equipped car is sold, however, the purchaser may disconnect the interlock, without violating the Act, by virtue of section 108(b)(1), which exempts transactions after the first purchase of the vehicle.

If a dealer offers to disconnect an interlock as an inducement to the sale of the vehicle, it is our opinion that a violation of the act occurs even though the actual disconnection may take place after delivery of the vehicle. If, on the other hand, the subject of the interlock is not discussed during the sale and the buyer subsequently requests disconnection on the basis of his experience with the vehicle, the dealer would not violate the Act if he disconnected the interlock.

Although a dealer does not violate the act by suggesting that the buyer go somewhere else to have the interlock disconnected, I am sure you appreciate the troublesome consequences such advice may bring for the buyer if the resulting disconnection is carelessly performed.

YOURS TRULY,

October 10, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

As you can see from the enclosed article of the October 1, 1973 issue of Automotive News, it is reported by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, that he received a letter August 20, 1973 from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs, in which he states:

"Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards (safety belt interlocks). The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

Dr. Gregory, many of my dealers have called wanting to know if the report by Mr. Carter is the truth. Can you tell me?

1. Is it a violation for my dealers after they make the sale to disconnect the interlock system or make it inoperative?

2. Is it against the law for a dealer to tell a purchaser of a 1974 car that he can go some where else and get it disconnected?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Ralph J. Kalberlon Executive Vice President Joe Machens President

cc: David Castles, Castles-Wilson Buick Casey Meyers-Casey Meyers Ford, Inc.

in the letterbox

Who can tamper?

On Page 1, of the Sept. 10 issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, appears a story by J. Donald Williamson, "First Buyers Turned Off by Interlocks."

The second and third paragraphs of your story read as follows:

"Forbidden by law to remove or tamper with the new system, dealers resorted to their own ingenuity to allay customer gripes and many and varied were the suggestions.

"Generally, stringent objections were met by suggesting the customer might stop at a service station on the way home where mechanics not hampered by federal edict could render the system inoperative."

After studiously searching for an answer to this question we finally received a letter dated Aug. 22, from Congressman Dante B. Fascell in which he enclosed a letter dated Aug. 20, 1973, he received from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs. The third paragraph reads as follows:

"In the case of starter interlock safety belts, they are required, at the time of purchase, in all passenger cars manufactured on or after Aug. 15, 1973. Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards. The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

It appears that the ruling from the U.S. Department of Transportation is directly contrary to the information conveyed in your story.

This matter is of such importance to all dealers we think it imperative that you retract our statement.

If by chance there is a subsequent ruling from the administrator, then we would be grateful if you would immediately furnish us with the latest release -- Edgar Jones, general manager, Nolan - Brown Motors, Inc., Miami.

Motors safety experts (AMC models were the only ones involved in the story).

As is pointed out in Reader Jones' letter, the law appears to permit a dealer to modify the interlock after the car is sold.

Dealers should keep in mind, however, that it is clearly the intent of the law that nobody tamper with the interlock. AMC people are obviously taking a supercautious stance.

Furthermore, a House bill currently under consideration would ban anyone, including the owner, from tampering with any safety item.

ID: 86-6.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI MORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/09/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM HIROSHI MORIYOSHI RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVS 101 CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102 TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE STARTER INTERLOCK AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT; OCC - 0476

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moriyoshi:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the identification and visibility requirements of these standards for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission. As part of a design you are considering producing, a gear position indicator, using light-emitting diodes (LED's), would be located within the instrument panel. Your letter states that this system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not be visible when the ignition switch was in the accessory or off positions. Your letter states further that, in addition to this LED display, the steering-column-mounted gear shift selector would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to Standard No. 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the inboard side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position. The issues raised by your letter with respect to whether the design you are considering would comply with Standards No. 101 and No. 102 are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 that are relevant to your request. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of section S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

I will now address these requirements in relation to the design you are considering. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your proposed design would not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions must be permanently displayed in view of the driver.

While your design would include two automatic gear position displays, neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position. As noted by your letter, NHTSA has interpreted the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. The display on the instrument panel would not be visible when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off positions. The other display, located on the steering column, would not be visible to the driver regardless of the position of the ignition switch.

NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement that certain identification be "in view of the driver" in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern "is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern." (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967)

As noted above, your letter states that the display on the steering column would "only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position." This suggests that little, if any, of the display may be seen from the driver's normal eye position

and that a significant amount of movement of the driver would be required to see the full display. This is further confirmed by a statement in your letter indicating that the driver would need to lean forward, utilizing the flexibility provided by an emergency locking retractor, in order to see the display, and then return to the normal driving position. (Emphasis added) It therefore appears that the display is not "in view of the driver."

While your letter suggests that the degree of visibility provided by the display might be appropriate for situations where the vehicle is not activated, Standard No. 102's requirement that the display be within the "view of the driver" does not distinguish between whether the engine is on or off. We also note that a driver used to viewing the gear position indicator on the instrument panel might not be aware that another display, which would not be visible from a normal driving position, even exists.

Since neither display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position, it is unnecessary to address the issue raised by your letter concerning whether multiple and complementary indicators can be used to meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 for gear position displays, where no single indicator meets the requirements.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam3617

Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3618

Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standard in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1)). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3616

Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0742

Dear Mr. Burnett: This is in further reply to Mr. David Humphrey's letter of April 25 1972, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to motor homes. Certain items, namely molded plastic toilets, shower stalls, and bath tubs were inadvertently omitted from our reply of May 16, 1972.; With respect to toilets, the NHTSA considers toilets (and toilet seats to fall within the meaning of seat backs and seat cushions in paragraph S4.1, of Standard No. 302 and consequently to be subject to the standard. Shower stalls and bath tubs are not included in the list of components in S4.1, and are not subject to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3243

Dear Mr. Gerkin: This responds to your letter of January 23, 1980, to Mr. Vladisla Radovich concerning Standard No 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.; You asked whether a crotch strap that is 'permanently attached to movable shield can be attached during the 20 mph test required for child restraint systems that have fixed or movable shields (sic). Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that, in the 20 mph tests, the child restraint belts are not to be attached unless 'they are an integral part of the fixed or movable shield.' The agency used the word 'integral' in its ordinary sense to mean something that is 'formed as a unit with another part.' (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977). A crotch strap that is permanently affixed to the shield is formed as a unit with the shield, and therefore, can remain attached during the test.; You also asked, whether, if the movable shield 'were designed in such way that moving it into position for use it automatically locked in that position, and a child was unable to unlock it', would the 20 mph test be conducted with the shield locked into place? Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that each movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Therefore, as long as your instructions explain how to lock the movable shield, it can be locked into place prior to the testing.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel