ID: 7854-2

Robert R. McAusland, P.E.
1311 N. 35th St.
Seattle, WA 98103

Dear Mr. McAusland:

This responds to your letter asking whether your design of an infant seat would comply with S5.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state that your infant seat would have a frame made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet, and that all the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 inch. As discussed below, the design would not comply if the edges of the seat frame are contactable by the infant dummy's head or torso during the standard's dynamic test.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.4, "Protrusion limitation," of Standard No. 213 states:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 [the head impact protection requirements for infant seats], shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

The term "contactable surface" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1."

Under S5.2.4, any edges of a rigid structural component within or underlying a surface that can be contacted by the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy during Standard No. 213's dynamic test must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch. Since the frame edges of your infant seat have a radius of only 1/8 inch, the seat would not comply with S5.2.4 if the surfaces overlying those edges can be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test.

You ask whether, since side loading is not specified in Standard No. 213, can you conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame, i.e., that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test. We assume that you believe the infant's head and torso are unlikely to contact the frame's edges in the 213 dynamic test since, due to the forward motion of the test, the dummy's components are likely to move forward and rearward, rather than laterally.

I note that, for purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would determine whether the surfaces are contactable surfaces for the purposes of S5.2.4 by observing a dynamic test, conducted according to the procedures in Standard No. 213. With respect to the issue of what information or analysis would be sufficient, for purposes of certification, for you to conclude that the surfaces overlying those edges cannot be contacted by the infant dummy during the dynamic test, manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. However, this does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

You should be aware, however, that the direction of dummy movement during the Standard No. 213 dynamic test depends on many variables other than the direction of the test, such as the performance of the restraint's belt system. For example, in the event a child seat's upper torso restraint slipped off the dummy's shoulder in the dynamic test, the dummy could move laterally and strike the sides of the restraint system. You should consider all of the variables that could affect the dummy's performance when determining whether frame contact can occur.

I also note that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Infant restraints are involved in real-world crashes other than the frontal impacts simulated in Standard No. 213. If data indicated that a child seat exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as sharp edges resulting in injuries in a side crash, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

Enclosed is an information sheet which provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:12/16/92

ID: nht91-4.39

DATE: July 5, 1991

FROM: Debby Funk

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Debby Funk (A38; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Thank you for your thorough and informative response to my inquiry regarding regulations governing the display of lighted signs in vehicles in my letter to you June 4, 1991.

Since you kindly offered to answer any further questions I might have, your response did leave me unclear on one point in particular.

In your letter you state that "the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance." And then you went on to say that "Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign."

Does this mean that it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (Anywhere in the back window?)

I have one additional question if you would be so kind to answer as I have been unsuccessful in finding the answer in the Federal Code book at my local library. What is F.M.S.S. 108?

Thank you again for your time and considerate help in this endeavor.

ID: nht73-1.34

DATE: 06/13/73

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

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 4, 1973 you have asked whether a manufacturer may comply with revisions made by the SAE to SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 in the absence of an amendment by NHTSA.

The answer is no, and your understanding is correct. A manufacturer must comply with the specific SAE standard and revision set forth in Standard No. 108, regardless of any succeeding revisions made by the SAE.

Sincerely,

June 4, 1973

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The Grote Manufacturing Company is an independent manufacturer of vehicle lighting equipment. In addition to supplying replacement items, we also supply a large number of original equipment vehicle manufacturers.

Recently, it has come to our attention that some vehicle manufacturers are under the impression that if an SAE Lighting Standard is referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, they are then permitted to comply to that basic standard, even if the SAE adopts a revision to the standard.

For the purpose of citing an example only, MVSS 108 currently requires that turn signal lamps comply with SAE J588d, June, 1966. A later standard, SAE J588e was adopted by the SAE in September of 1970. The specific point in question is whether or not a vehicle manufacturer has the option of complying with the later SAE standard, rather than the one specifically referenced in MVSS 108. A further example could be cited where sidemarker lamps are currently required to comply with SAE J592c. The SAE has again modified this standard and adopted J592d. Specifically, must the manufacturer comply with the referenced DOT standard or does he have the option of adopting the later revision which SAE has issued?

It has always been our understanding that the referenced SAE standards apply not only to the basic standards, such as a stop lamp, but rather to the very specific standard including the suffix letter which are cited in MVSS 108. However, we want to be certain we are correct before passing this information on to those customers who have raised this question.

Yours very truly, THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY -- Paul G. Scully, Vice President

ID: aiam1270

Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1973, which we receive September 17, 1973, concerning the application of Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to seat belt assemblies.; You ask whether components of the seat belt assembly such as plasti buckle covers must meet the requirements of the standard as well as the belt itself. Standard No. 302 applies to all enumerated interior materials, not just 'textile materials or sheet materials.' Since plastic buckle covers are considered part of the seat belt, they must meet the standard's requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 0784

Mr. Marshall S. Reagle
Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Reagle:

This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro- reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you that, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments.

This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4- inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c).

Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entrance angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex

Reflectors, January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/17/95

ID: aiam1810

Dear Mr. O'Reilly: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, in which yo ask whether zippers fall under the purview of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302.; S4.1 of the standard states that the following components of passenge cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet its requirements:; >>>Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.<<<; To the extent that a zipper is a part of any of these components, i would fall within the ambit of the standard. While recreational vehicles are not currently covered by Standard No. 302, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued on November 15, 1974, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the coverage of the standard to include recreational vehicles (copy enclosed).; You should also be aware that other rulemaking relevant to the coverag of the standard is underway and will soon be published in the *Federal Register*. For this reason, we recommend you subscribe to either the Government Printing Office Safety Standard subscription service or an equivalent commercial service as detailed in the enclosure.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: 18698.nhf

Mr. Frank Enten
5305 Wilson Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814-1321

Dear Mr. Enten:

This responds to your September 2, 1998, letter to Nicole Fradette of my staff, requesting that the agency permit a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explain that your wife is disabled and has difficulty moving her legs in and out of the vehicle due to her limited range of mobility. You explain that you need to move the passenger seat back a few inches so that your wife has more room in which to maneuver in and out of the vehicle. Specifically, you request permission to have the rails that the seat sits on adjusted so that the seat can slide back further.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat and seat rails to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat and chair rails to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to adjust the seat rails. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/13/98

ID: nht91-7.53

DATE: December 23, 1991

FROM: Thomas A. Gerke -- Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Marc Iacovelli -- President, Rally Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated February 3, 1992 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas A. Gerke, Esq. (A39; Std. 107; 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Rally Manufacturing, Inc. ("Rally").

The purpose of this letter is to obtain confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA") position with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. Specifically, Rally needs confirmation that FMVSS 107 does not apply to replacement windshield wiper arms and blades ("Wiper Blades") sold by a distributor/wholesaler to retail stores and other similar customers where the Wiper Blades are not installed by the distributor/wholesaler.

On May 14, 1991, Rally received a letter from NHTSA (NEF-31LLo IR 934 copy enclosed). After devoting significant management time to the matter and incurring substantial legal expenses, Rally was able to convince NHTSA that the position taken was contrary to applicable regulations and the positions taken by NHTSA in the record of various proposed rule making proceedings. IR 934 was closed. (See enclosed NHTSA letter dated August 7, 1991).

At the time of receipt of the May 14, 1991 letter, Rally discontinued the production of the products identified in the correspondence. Although the August 7, 1991 letter closed IR 934, Rally did not resume production. This has put Rally at a very significant competitive disadvantage and is resulting in the loss of sales, market share and shelf space to Rally's competition. Specifically, in reliance on your letter dated September 3, 1991, Rally's competitors (one of which is Custom Accessories, Inc.) have continued to offer a broad product line which includes products identical or very similar to the product discontinued by Rally. Again, this broader product line has put Rally at a competitive disadvantage and resulted in the loss of sales, market share and shelf space.

The situation has left Rally with no choice but to reintroduce the products in question in order to be able to offer a competitive product line. The difference between the positions taken in the May 14 letter to Rally and the September 3 letter to Custom Accessories, Inc. is the reason Rally seeks the requested written confirmation.

Your cooperation in immediately confirming to the undersigned on behalf of Rally that the NHTSA position is and continues to be (as set forth in your September 3 letter) that the sale of Wiper Blades by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor is not (i) prohibited by FMVSS No. 107; (ii) a violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; or (iii) prohibited by any other applicable authority enforced by the NHTSA. Our telecopier number is 816-391-7600.

If there are any questions concerning the above or the requested letter, please telephone me immediately. Otherwise, thank you in advance for your prompt confirmation of NHTSA's position.

ID: nht92-1.10

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PHILIP E. STERN, ESQUIRE -- RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI & WOODRUFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COPYEE: DAVID LOMBARDI -- TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MARSHA SAILESBURY -- CONSULTANT, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PHILIP E. STERN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8054)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952-6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-8.22

DATE: November 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jason Backs -- Engineering Department, Travis Body and Trailer, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/19/93 from Jason Backs to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of October 19, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a dump trailer manufactured by your company.

With respect to the location of the horizontal side conspicuity treatment, you prefer not to place it on the rubrail because "our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface." You propose to apply the conspicuity treatment between each side stake, resulting in 58% coverage of the trailer side. The tape is "in full view" from a point perpendicular to the side of the trailer, but at approximately 30 degrees from perpendicular, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. You ask for our concurrence that your proposed treatment is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

We are pleased to provide our concurrence. The mounting height requirements of Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 are specified in terms of practicability. The rule was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting height of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The determination of practicability, in the first instance is that of the manufacturer certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Because of raised ridges, you deem the rubrail not as practicable a location as the slightly higher area. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 allows discontinuities in the side treatment as long as not less than half the side is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

Although the sheeting itself must meet the performance indicated at the observation angles specified in Figure 29, there are no visibility requirements that apply to it once it is installed on a trailer. This means that the obscuring of the conspicuity treatment that begins at about 30 degrees from perpendicular under your proposed treatment is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.