ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: 1984-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. Winkler-Doman -- Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. P. Winkler-Doman Office of the General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Rd. Dearborn, MI 48121

Dear Ms. Winkler-Doman: This responds to your July 19, l984, letter regarding the timing of petitions to amend average fuel economy standards. As you know, the agency has taken the position that Ford's petition to amend the l984 and l985 light truck average fuel economy standards was not timely filed with regard to the 1984 model year.

A model year is presumed to begin sometime in the autumn of the preceding calendar year (see Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 710 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. l983)). The Ford petition was filed on November 21, l983, and amended on January 20, l984. Since model year l984 began in the fall of l983, it is clear that the l984 light truck standards could not have been amended in response to the Ford petition prior to the start of that model year.

Section 502(b) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2002(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue average fuel economy standards for light trucks for each model year beginning with l979. These standards must be set at the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level" and must be prescribed at least "18 months prior to the beginning of" the model year to which they apply. 1d.

Section 502(f)(1) of the Act provides that the "Secretary may, from time to time, amend" any light truck fuel economy standard "as long as such standard, as amended, meets the requirements" of section 502(b). An amendment which makes standards more stringent must be promulgated "at least l8 months prior to the beginning of the model year to which such amendment will apply." See section 502(f)(2), 15 U.S.C. 2002(f)(2). With regard to any timing requirements applicable to amendments which make standards less stringent, section 502(f) is not explicit but could be interpreted in two ways. The language in paragraph ( ) (1) authorizing amendments "from time to time" could be interpreted to permit amendments at any time. Alternatively, the language in that paragraph requiring that amendments to standards must comply with requirements applicable to their original enactment could be interpreted to impose the l8 month rule, one of the requirements of section 502(b), on amendments to reduce standards. Under the letter approach, all amendments would have to be issued at least l8 months prior to the start of the effected model year.

Where a statutory provision is ambiguous on its face, rules of statutory construction dictate that the legislative history of the provision must be considered. See Sutherland, "Statutory Construction," 4th Ed., section 48.01. An Act's Conference Report has been considered the "most persuasive evidence of congressional intent" in this regard. Denby v. Schwelker, 671 F.2d 507, 510 (D.C. Cir. l981). The Conference Report on th Energy Policy and Conservation Act (the statute which added the fuel economy provisions to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) contains the following discussion:

Average fuel economy standards prescribed by the ST (Secretary of Transportation) for passenger automobiles in model years after l980, for non-passenger automobiles, and for passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers of fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles may be amended from time to time as long as each such amendment satisfies the l8 month rule-i.e., any amendment which has the effect of making an average fuel economy standard more stringent must be promulgated at least l8 months prior to the beginning of the model year to which such amendment will apply. An amendment which has the effect of making an average fuel economy standard less stringent can be promulgated at any time prior to the beginning of the model year in question.

See Sen. Rep. 94-516, 94th Cong., lst Sess. (1979) at 157. (Emphasis added.)

Although this discussion does not expressly prohibit amendments after the start of a model year, the last sentence certainly implies that result. If no limit on the timing of relaxatory amendments had been intended, The underlined sentence would have been ended after the words "...promulgated at any time.." The agency believes that Congress intended to provide certainty and finality for all parties concerned with regard to the levels of standards, to permit planning by the manufacturers and the agency through cutting off amendments once a model year has begun.

Ford has argued that a failure to permit amendments to fuel economy standards after the start of a model year places manufacturers in a difficult position, since unanticipated sales trends during the model year might impair its ability to comply. However, the agency is also concerned that amendments made after production has begun have some characteristics of ex postfacto law. We believe that Congress intended standards to be established before production begins, to encourage the achievement of particular fuel economy levels rather than simply rectifying past conduct. Chrysler Corporation has expressed similar concerns in its comments in our pending light truck rulemaking, noting that late changes in standards levels could adversely effect manufacturers who planned to meet the original levels. Therefore, we must reaffirm our previous position that petitions to amend fuel economy standards must be submitted in time to permit necessary rulemaking to be completed prior to the start of the model year.

Ford has also requested that the agency specify the precise data by which petitions to amend fuel economy standards must be filed. As noted above, the single court to address the issue has stated only that a given model year begins in the fall of the preceding calendar year (e.g., fall l984 is the beginning of the l985 model year). In its final rule establishing fuel economy reporting requirements, the agency took the position that, in the absence of my single "annual production period," the model year would be deemed to coincide with the calendar year, e.g., the l985 model year would begin January l, l985. See l9 U.S.C. 2001 (12) and 42 FR 62374 (December 12, l977). A further complicating issue is the time necessary to conduct a rulemaking proceeding. Since any amendments to standards must be promulgated prior to the start of the model year, petitions must be filed in time to permit the agency to complete a rulemaking proceeding on the petition prior to the start of the model year. The time necessary for such a proceeding will vary greatly depending on the complexity and controversiality of the issues involved. A proceeding would involve agency analysis of the petition, preparation and publication of the necessary analysis of comments, and preparation and publication of the documentation necessary to accompany the final decision. Such a proceeding could not in any case be completed in less than 6 months. The various uncertainties involved make it impossible for the agency to specify a precise date after which petitions will not be accepted. However, it is clear that the Ford petition, which was filed in November of the preceding calendar year, was not timely. Petitions regarding a particular model year's standards should be submitted no later than the early part of the preceding calendar year, and preferrably before that time.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: ES09-007169 213

ID: aiam0997

Dear Stan: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, concerning th application of Standard No. 124, 'Accelerator Control Systems', to auxiliary throttles mounted inside or outside of the cab and used exclusively while the vehicle is in a stationary position to insure proper engine speed for the operation of pumps, elevating platforms, and similar equipment. Since the definition of 'idle position' was amended to provide for the use of throttle positioners in 37 F.R. 20035 (September 23, 1972), the auxiliary throttles described are not subject to the requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.17

DATE: 11/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India

Dear Mr. Keshav:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Francis Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam". You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.

Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between the headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

RD 39363 Date: 2nd September 1979.

Mr. Fransis Armstrong, Director Office of the Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We refer to FMVSS Part 571, S108 Table IV/SAE J 588c 4.2 standand. As per the standard the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamp and head lamp should be 4 inches. We have come across some vehicles sold in U.S.A. wherein this dimension is satisfied only in the straight ahead driving position i.e. when the handle bar is kept straight. In such vehicle, since the turn signal flasher lamps are fitted in the front on the non steered portion of the vehicle, the distance between the turn signal flasher lamp and the head lamp is almost zero when the handle bar is turned to the full lock position. Please let us know whether this is permissible as per the regulation.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

M. S. KESHAV MANAGER - RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ID: 19796-2

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Vehicle Safety Regulation
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your letter asking how Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102) would apply to the hybrid electric vehicle Toyota produces. I regret the delay in responding. According to your letter, this hybrid vehicle uses both an electric motor and gasoline engine to provide motive power and the engine starts and stops as needed, instead of idling constantly as most engines do.

You were concerned about S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102, which provides that "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." Your hybrid electric vehicle would not comply with a literal reading of this provision because the gasoline engine starts automatically with the transmission in any position except Neutral to supplement the electric motor's power and/or to recharge the batteries.

While the starter for the gasoline engine is not inoperative when it starts automatically as needed, we do not interpret S3.1.3 as prohibiting your design. In construing our standards, we bear in mind the purpose underlying the provision that we have been asked to interpret. In this case, you have correctly stated that the purpose of the inoperative starter provision is to ensure that the vehicle will not lurch forward or backward unexpectedly from a parked position when the starter is first engaged to start the vehicle. Your design does not allow the vehicle to turn on unless the transmission is in Park. We agree with you that this feature precludes any sudden unexpected movement of the vehicle, the precise problem the "inoperative starter" provision addresses.

After considering your letter, the agency intends to begin rulemaking to update the language of Standard No. 102 to address the technological advances in this area since the current language was adopted in 1968. Until that action is completed, we will interpret S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102 as requiring that driver activation of the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. This meaning effectively addresses the purpose of the requirement, while allowing flexibility for advanced designs. Consistent with this reading of the existing language, the design on your hybrid electric vehicle would not be prohibited by S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992: OCC# 19796:6/22/99:Dfujita9/29/99
cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron; NCC-20 (PA), NPS-01, NSA-01
Interp. std. 102; Redbook (2)

ID: 77-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning its February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 30 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553.35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tire label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use of the optional heading "Suitable Tire-Rim Choice."

Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identical size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, can avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturer's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 23, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. 71-19; Notice 6

Part 567 - Certification

Docket No. 75-32; Notice 2

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars We are writing regarding your response to our petition for re-consideration of FMVSS 120 which we submitted February 20, 1976, wherein we requested deletion of the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label. It is our contention that many consumers upon seeing this label will be led to believe that the tires listed are the only tires that can be legally used on the vehicle and that the inflation pressures on the label are the required operating pressures for the tires.

In addition, the inclusion of tire pressures on the FMVSS 120 certification label will be especially confusing since tires of the same size designation can require different pressures for the same load carrying capacity.

In the response to our petition, which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 25 dated Monday, February 7, 1977, it is stated that it is the agency's view that any possibility of confusion can easily be avoided by an indication that the tire designation represents a radial tire, so that a person substituting a non-radial tire size with the same designation is aware that the two tires are not identical.

However, we wish to point out to the agency that we were not only referring to tires of different constructions but also to tires of the same construction. For example, a Michelin 10.00R20 LR G radial tire carrying a tire load of 6040 lbs. requires 100 psi whereas a 10.00R20 LR G radial tire standardized by the American Tire and Rim Association requires 105 psi for the same load.

Since FMVSS 119 does not require tires of the same size designation to have identical load/inflation values, the fact is that many Michelin tires have different pressure requirements than T&RA tires of the same size -- designations, even though they are both radial tires. This fact could, in some cases, cause users to underinflate their tires based on the inflation pressure indicated on the certification label.

We therefore re-submit our petition for re-consideration and once again urge the agency to reconsider the necessity of requiring information on the certification label that will lead to a great deal of confusion. We request that the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label be deleted.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: 1985-01.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John Humphrey -- Fleet Maintenance Division, U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management United States Postal Service Delivery services Department 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-7200

This is in response to your letter of January 15, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office asking for a waiver of the maximum height requirement so that the Postal Service may install center stop lamps on its new delivery trucks mounted from 75 to 83 inches above the road surface.

You do not need an exemption in order to install the lamp at the height you desire. First, Standard No. 108 requires the installation of a center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars only, and not on trucks. Secondly, the 72-inch limitation on stop lamp mounting height imposed by Standard No. 108 for stop lamps applies only to the stop lamps that are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. There is no limitation on the mounting height of the center lamp, when required on a vehicle, or prohibition against mounting it above 72 inches on a vehicle that is not required to have it.

We appreciate the interest of the Postal Service in reducing rear end accidents but would like to point out that the efficacy of the lamp on vehicle other than passenger cars is unknown. Our studies showed that the lamp was most effective at the approximate eye height of the driver in a following vehicle, and also as an alert to the driver behind who saw the highmounted light through the intervening car. Thus, the Postal Service with its lights mounted above the rear door should not expect its vehicles in service necessarily to replicate this agency's test experience.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1985

Mr. Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Room 5219 - FMVSS - 108 NHTSA - U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

The U.S. Postal Service is in the process of testing and procuring a new Long Life Vehicle (LLV). These vehicles are light delivery trucks and will be used primarily for residential mail delivery and collection and will replace the vehicle (Jeep) presently used for this function.

In the interest of safety we have required a high center mounted brake light on these units. Since the units will be slightly larger than the current vehicle the high mounted brake light will exceed the maximum of seventy-two (72) inches from the roadway as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Part 511, 108 Table IV Location of Required Equipment.

Due to the configuration of the proposed LLV the center mounted stop lamp will be between 78 and 83 inches from the roadway at curb weight. I have enclosed a photo of the three units we are currently testing, so that you might have a better understanding of the stop lamp location.

We are requesting a waiver to this requirement to permit placement of a center mounted stop lamp on these vehicles. Your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mr. John Humphrey General Manager Fleet Maintenance Division Office of Fleet Management

ID: nht91-3.1

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: James E. Rooks, Jr. -- Staff Attorney, Association of Trial Lawyers of America

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James E. Rooks, Jr. (A37; Std. 205; Std. 212; Std. 216; VSA 108(a)(1)(a); VSA 108 (a)(2))

TEXT:

In conjunction with a research project I am completing, I am writing to request a clarification of a NHTSA position.

I am attaching a copy of a "Legal Advisory" column that appeared in Glass magazine for November 1986. There the general counsel of the National Glass Association (NGA) wrote that NHTSA's chief counsel had advised NGA "that federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replace- ment windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots." He goes on to state that "no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law (because) it is the original damage to the windshield... that renders the windshield inoperable -- not the company that repairs or replaces the already damaged windshield." Presumably the provision of federal law referred to is Section 1397(a)(2)A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

I would appreciate knowing the following:

1. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 212 and 216;

2. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to the cited "render inoperable" provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended; and

3. Whether these positions have yet been tested in court; if so, what court, and what was the ruling?

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. The deadline for my research is Friday, March 29, 1991. I would appreciate it a great deal if I could receive a response as soon as possible.

Any written response may be sent by facsimile to 202-342-5484.

Attachment

Article from "Legal Advisory" by Jerald Jacobs entitled Urethane Versus Butyl Windshield Replacement; Must Urethane be used for windshield replacement? What are the legal consequences? (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-1.6

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey P. Henderson -- ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-10-90 from Jeffrey P. Henderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4976)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about paragraph S5.7 of Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies that each material used in a child restraint system must meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302 (Flammability of Interior Materials). You asked whether a "plastic pouch" that contains the installation instructions for the seat is required to meet the requirements.

The answer to your question is yes. A pouch that is provided to store the seat's installation instructions during the life of the seat is required by Standard 213 (S5.6.1.6; S5.6.6) to be located on the seat. Thus, by definition, the pouch would be a physical part of the seat. If a component is made a physical part of the seat (e.g., by affixing the component to the seat), the component is subject to Standard 302. The agency referred to the term "physical part" in a November 7, 1980 letter to J. P. Koziatek. In that letter, the agency determined that installation instructions, which are not a "physical part" of the child seat, need not comply with the flammability requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.