ID: nht90-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 9, 1990

FROM: MEHDI ROWGHANI -- DALLAS EUROPEAN PARTS DISTRIBUTORS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO MEHDI ROWGHANI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 214; PART 541) TEXT:

We are importers/distributors of parts for European cars. We are repeatedly asked by our customers if importation and sale of European doors (without reinforcement bars) is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation . May we request you to clarify this point for us.

ID: 17170.volvo

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your January 30, 1998, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) following up on an earlier interpretation to you concerning Volvo's manufacture of a rear-facing toddler restraint. The restraint would be used rear-facing only, and recommended for children weighing between 20 and 40 pounds (lb.). I regret the delay in responding.

Your earlier letter asked about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a rear-facing restraint that would be recommended only for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. You did not describe the restraint in detail. Your present letter provides the following description:

[T]he Volvo CRS [child restraint system] is secured by a Type I seat belt assembly (as defined by in FMVSS 209). Additionally, the Volvo CRS is secured by a bar which is attached to the back of the Volvo CRS, the other end of the bar resting against the vehicle (certification platform) floor. This same configuration and installation procedure would be used in a vehicle during normal, i.e., "everyday," use.

You specifically ask about the "installation" requirement in S5.3.2 of the standard, as it would apply to your restraint. S5.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

When installed on a vehicle seat, each add-on child restraint system . . .shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in 571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4. . . .

You ask for confirmation that the term "additional anchorage strap" would include the bar you would use in your system. We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it. We interpret a "strap" to consist of flexible material. S5.3.2 specifies that a strap may be provided so long as the strap conforms to S5.4. Because S5.4 sets forth requirements for belts, belt buckles and belt webbing, it is clear that any "strap" provided must be of belt webbing. Further, S5.3.2 is meant to support the standardization of the means of attaching child restraints to increase the likelihood that child seats are properly installed.  The reference to the "additional anchorage strap" made allowances for the provision of a top tether anchorage strap, which was at one time provided on most, if not all, forward-facing child restraints. The bar you ask about would be unique to your system and inconsistent with the standardized method of attaching a child restraint.

It should be noted that determining conformance with S5.3.2 is made when the child restraint seat is "on a vehicle seat." Due in part to the quoted language, the agency will assess the performance of the child seat using just the vehicle seat and not the floor. Also, under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, your type of child restraint system must meet performance requirements when "secured to the standard vehicle seat using only the standard vehicle lap belt." The quoted phrase means that NHTSA will not use a means supplemental to the lap belt, such as a bar, of securing a child seat to the vehicle seat in the agency's compliance test. The lap belt alone is used because the agency found that a very high percentage of parents did not use the supplemental tether strap to secure their child seats even when they knew the strap was needed to provide their child protection. Your bar would be supplemental to the lap belt attachment, similar to a tether on a child seat. Similar to a tether, there is a strong likelihood that the bar would be misused with the seat. Accordingly, for the same reasons that a tether is not used in the compliance test, the bar could also not be used in the compliance test.

I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:213
d.7/6/98

ID: aiam0137

Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr. M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.; I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses' which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.; The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 wer previously included in Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9, 31 F.R. 11528)' which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.; We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats an I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a *proposed* regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.; There are no other existing Federal standards on child restrain systems for use in motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Standards o Crash-Injury Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht69-2.1

DATE: 03/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Hail Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, to the Office of Standards Preparation, concerning the proposed lighting equipment on your dump trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing 701b1907 dated February 20, 1969, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the following exceptions:

1. The required license plate lamp is not shown.

2. The minimum mounting height for reflectors is 15 inches.

3. With respect to maximum mounting zones for lamps and reflectors, the limiting dimensions of 16, 30, and 24 inches indicated on your drawing appear to be too liberal for a trailer with essentially square corners.

With reference to Notes 2 and 3 on your drawing, certain restrictions as specified in paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 are applicable for combination lamps.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from (Illegible Word) responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht71-4.1

DATE: 07/27/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 11, 1971, you requested our opinion as to how Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to a seating system in which the seat belt is attached, to an eyebolt anchored on the seat frame and the eyebolt, in turn, is anchored by another length of webbing to the floor. The evident purpose of such a method attachment on suspension-type seats is to eliminate the shocks which would otherwise be transmitted to the occupant and to augment the strength of the seat, which might be unable by itself to withstand the occupant's weight in a crash.

As you correctly indicate in your letter, a system in which the belt is attached only to the floor requires a force under S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) of 20 times the weight of the seat in a forward and rearward direction, while a system with a lap belt anchored to the seat requires in addition, a force of 5000 pounds to be applied simultaneously to the seat belt in accordance with Standard No. 210 (S4.2(c)). It is our opinion that the hybrid seat belt installation shown by Oshkosh will be likely to impose significant loads on the seating system in the event of a crash, and that it should therefore be treated under S4.2(c) as a system with a seat mounted belt. The webbing running from the eyebolt to the floor is considered to be a part of the seat anchorage and should be employed during the test.

If you have further questions, please advise us.

ID: 003011cmc

Ms. Patricia Cunningham
London Taxi North America
80 Union Avenue
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Ms. Cunningham,

This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:

Except as provided in S5.2.1.2, each child restraint system other than a car bed shall provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back which is an integral part of the system[.]

S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1.

The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/31/03

ID: nht70-1.45

DATE: 03/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sofica

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969, which evidently became lost after it reached us.

In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answers to them, are as follows:

1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation in vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.

2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported into the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.

3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent for service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products; it also applies to manufacturers who are "offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States". The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.

Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 571.108 -- Parking Lamp Activation -- Mazda 1-- 17-0655.docx_sig (003)

Mr. David Robertson

Environmental and Safety Engineering

Mazda North America Operations

1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Robertson,

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask how the steady burning requirement for parking lamps applies to an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp while the turn signal is activated.1

You describe in your letter an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp which contains two discrete LED light sources: one that is amber and one that is white. When the LED lamp operates as a parking lamp only, the amber LED is off and the white LED is steady burning.  However, you ask about the permissibility of two alternative ways in which these LEDs could possibly operate once the turning signal is activated. Under the first alternative (“Alternative A”), the amber and white LEDs flash in an alternating pattern. To an observer of Alternative A, the lamp would alternate its color between amber and white for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. Under the second alternative (“Alternative B”), the white LED turns off for the duration of the turn signal’s activation. To an observer of Alternative B, the LED lamp would alternate between amber and “off” for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. This interpretation assumes that your lamp’s LEDs do not fluctuate in intensity while activated.

As explained below, our answer is it would be permissible for an optically combined parking/turn signal lamp to alternate its parking lamp and turn signal lamp LEDs while the turn signal is activated (which is the case under Alternative A), but it would not be permissible for the lamp to completely deactivate the parking lamp LED while the turn signal is activated (Alternative B).

1 We note that, while you originally requested confidential treatment of portions of your interpretation request, you withdrew that request in a subsequent communication with Daniel Koblenz of my staff, so your entire interpretation request is now publicly releasable.

In addition, as explained at the end of this letter, our interpretation about the permissibility of Alternative A applies only to lamps that use LEDs, and not to vehicles using traditional incandescent lamps.

Requirements for optically combined lamps

FMVSS No. 108 governs signal lamp performance. Under S4 of the standard, “optically combined” is defined, in relevant part, as: “a lamp having… two or more separate light sources that operate in different ways, and has its optically functional lens area wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.” Because your lamp meets this definition, we consider it to be an “optically combined” lamp.2 Under S6.3 of the standard, optically combined lamps are only permissible “if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met.”

The specific requirements that apply to turn signal lamps are found in S7.1, and the requirements that apply to parking lamps are found in S7.8. We assume for purposes of our analysis that your lamp would meet these general requirements for both its turn signal and parking lamp functions.3

According to FMVSS No. 108, parking lamps must be activated with a vehicle’s headlamps, and they must be “steady burning” at all times.4 In past interpretations, we have understood the “steady burning” requirement for vehicle lighting to be met if the lamps is “is perceived as being steady-burning” by an observer even if, as a technical matter, the lamp is not steady burning.5

Discussion

Because your parking lamp’s LEDs are not, technically, steady burning in either of the alternatives you describe, the key question is whether the parking lamp in the alternatives would appear to be “steady burning” to an observer while the turn signal is activated.

In our view, Alternative A is permissible, while Alternative B is not.  This is because only Alternative A would give an observer the perception that the parking lamp is steady burning throughout the operation of the turn signal. Under Alternative A, an observer would see the turn signal alternate between two states: amber and white.  From the observer’s standpoint, at no point is the lamp completely off; whenever the amber LED is on, the white LED is off, whenever the amber LED is off, the white LED is on. Because there is no gap in LED illumination, an observer would perceive that the white LED is on for the entire time that the turn signal is activated, and that the white light it produces is combined with the amber LED’s light while the

2 S4.

3 Please note that there are luminosity requirements for optically combined turn signal and parking lamps that are different than the luminosity requirements for turn signal lamps and parking lamps that are not optically combined. These requirements are set out in S7.1.1.12.

4 Table I-a.

5 See letter to Kiminori Hyodo (Nov. 5, 2005), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Koito.2followup.html.

amber LED flashes. Because the white LED would appear to be illuminated at all times, the lamp in Alternative A would meet the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.6 (Please note that, because FMVSS No. 108 requires that the parking lamp be steady burning, if the lamp’s amber LED becomes inactive or is otherwise unable to meet the performance requirements for turn signals, the white LED must remain steady burning at all times, including when the turn signal is activated.)

Conversely, under Alternative B, when the amber LED is off, the lamp produces no light whatsoever. Thus, an observer would perceive that the lamp deactivates for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, which, as noted earlier would violate the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.

Applicability

Please note that this interpretation applies only to optically combined parking and turn signal lamps that use LEDs. This is because, unlike traditional incandescent lamps, LEDs are capable of turning on and shutting off almost instantaneously. Traditional incandescent lamps take some time to power up and shut off, which means that if an optically combined incandescent lamp were to flash according to Alternative A, there would be observable gaps in illumination while the lamp is powering up. Because an observer would be able to perceive these gaps, an observer would not perceive the lamp to be steady-burning. Therefore, Alternative A would not be permissible for an incandescent lamp.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.06.11 14:16:32

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

6 It is NHTSA’s understanding that, due to the photometric differences between LEDs and incandescent light sources, if the white LED were to stay illuminated while the amber LED flashed, the combined light of the two LEDs would appear to be pink in color, rather than amber.

ID: nht87-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sadako Vargas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR Children's Specialized Hospital New Providence Road Mountainside, NJ 07091

Dear Ms. Vargas:

Thank you for your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting approval to adapt a car seat for use by patients that are Siamese twins. You explained that these patients are connected at the waist, and have two trunks, two sets of arms, and on e pair of legs. You would like to modify an existing car seat by adding another harness and perhaps adding extra foam cushions to support their heads and offer added comfort. hope the following explanation of our statute and regulatory requirements will be helpful to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213. Manufacturers of child restraint systems must certify that each new child restraint they produce conforms to Standard No. 213 before th e child restraint is offered for sale.

However, the Safety Act provide; that child restraint systems are only required to comply with Standard No. 213 until "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale;" 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). When your hospital purchases child restraint systems, that is the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Once your hospital has made such a purchase, the Safety Act does not require that the child restraint system continue to conform with Standard No. 213.

The only restriction the Safety Act imposes on child restraint systems after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business can "render inoperative" any devic e or element of design installed on or in the child restraint system in compliance with Standard No. 213; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). Note that there is no statutory prohibition against the owner of the child restraint system rendering inoperative a device or element of design installed on the child restraint in compliance with Standard No. 213. We conclude that a hospital modifying child restraints for use by physically handicapped children is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business. This conclusion means there is no statutory restriction on the type or modifications your hospital can make to child restraints it has acquired. Accordingly, the hospital does not need any approval from this agency to modify child restraint systems to accommodate the particular needs of physically handicapped children.

You also asked for our advice as to what kind of car seat your hospital can provide these siamese twins when they outgrow the commercially available car seat you are proposing to modify for them. I doubt that there are commercially available child restra int systems that, without modification, can accommodate the Siamese twins. If you are asking which child restraint you should select for modification or are seeking advice on how to best perform any modifications, I recommend that you contact Ms. Kathlee n Weber, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. She has experience in testing child restraints designed specifically for use by physically handicapped children and could provide you with information ab out such testing. Her telephone number is (313) 764-4722.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If you have any further questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Kratzki Advisor to Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. - Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590 April 6, 1987

Dear Mr. Kratzki:

This is to request approval for the use of an adapted car seat for particular patients, in regard to the phone conversation you had with Dr. Elena Zarafu, Medical Director of Children's Specialized Hospital.

The patients in question are siamese twins, 2, months old at the present time. They are connected from the waist up, have two separate trucks, two sets of arms, and one pair of legs. Their approximate weight is 6.6. lbs. and the height is presently. 45 i nches.

We are considering adapting a Britan care seat. The upper parts of the existing harness passes over the inner shoulders of both twins. The lower part of the existing harness secures the twins' hips. An extra harness will be attached across the chests of both the harness. The harness will be about 2 inches wide, padded with soft foam, and wrapped around the back of the car seat (secured to the back of the car seat with velcro). Extra foam cushions or pillows may be necessary to support their heads and ad d comfort.

The twins, at present, fit in the Britan car seat together. However, there is no other car seat large enough to accommodate them when they grow more. I would appreciate your advice as to what kind of the seat we can provide them when they no longer fit i n the commercially available care seat.

Thank you very much. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR SV/bp

ID: nht68-4.5

DATE: 08/23/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Coleman Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 12, 1968, to Mr. Ed Laysath concerning lighting requirements on camper trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your sketch appear to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the exception that a license plate lamp is not indicated. Since no dimensions are specified on your sketch, we can only assume that the locations are as specified in the standard.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 103, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.