ID: aiam3947

Dear Mr. Park: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1985, asking for a interpretation of the center high-mounted stoplamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You stated that the Hyundai lamp is 'obscured slightly by the rea window wiper arm' but that 'the effective projective luminous lens area exceeds 4.5 square inches'. You asked whether the wiper arm is considered an obstruction to the lamp.; The agency answered a similar question from Mazda in its response t petitions for reconsideration of the stoplamp requirements published on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed). NHTSA advised that compliance of the lamp would be judged with a rear wiping system in the design off position, and that photometric conformance would be judged thereby. The lamp must be positioned in such a way that it will comply when tested at any of the photometric test points specified in the standard with the wiper system in the design off position.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.5

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 14, 1976, request for confirmation that seat belt webbing with one woven selvage and one knitted selvage qualifies as "webbing", as that term is defined in paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The definition of "webbing" in Standard No. 209 does not specify that selvages must be woven. Rather, the definition only specifies that selvages be "finished", for the purpose of ensuring that the webbing will not ravel. We conclude that the new webbing you submitted, with one woven and one knitted selvage, has "finished selvages" and would qualify as "webbing" within the meaning of Standard No. 209.

ID: aiam0727

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1972, inquiring whethe temporary covering which is used to prevent soiling of upholstery during production, transportation, and sales demonstration must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302.; Whether the material must comply with the standard dependsupon (sic whether it is likely to be used in a significant number of cases by the purchaser as part of the motor vehicle. You have stated that the purpose of the material is to 'prevent soiling during production, transportation, and sales demonstrations.' It is important that this intent be carried out in practice, if the material is not to be considered vehicle interior material subject to the standard. Two criteria which would be considered in determining whether the material is covered by the standard are (1) whether it is placed in the vehicle in a way that its use after purchase is unlikely, and (2) what steps the manufacturer has taken to see that it is removed before sale to the purchaser. If Blue Bird does take steps to ensure that the material will not be used as a seat cover by the purchaser, then the material would not be required to conform to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 000322cmc

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your September 17, 2002, e-mail concerning the telltale requirement for vehicles equipped with automatic suppression features for passenger air bags under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. You ask whether you may use a telltale design that would illuminate "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated and "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when it is not activated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the illumination you have described is permissible under FMVSS No. 208.

You state in your e-mail that Subaru is interested in using a telltale for which:

With the ignition on, the words PASS AIR BAG will always be illuminated . With the ignition on, if the passenger air bag is deactivated, then the word OFF is illuminated. If the passenger air bag is activated, then illumination of OFF is turned off and illumination of a separate box area with the word ON in black is illuminated.

Subaru's proposed design meets the specific requirement of a telltale using the identifying words "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when the air bag is deactivated, but it also includes the illuminated display "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated.

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. The rule also established a phase-in schedule, starting September 1, 2003, under which vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet these new advanced air bag requirements. The amended safety standard provides alternative methods of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements. One of the advanced systems contemplated for the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The final rule was amended in response to various petitions for reconsideration. Those amendments were published on December 18, 2001.

The requirements for the telltale are specified in S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. One of the requirements is that the telltale, a yellow light, emits light whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated and does not emit light whenever the air bag system is activated (except that it need not emit light when the passenger seat is unoccupied). Another requirement is that the telltale have the identifying words "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASS AIR BAG OFF" either on the telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale. There is no requirement that the identifying language be placed directly over the telltale or be otherwise illuminated. While the December 2001 amendments did make some minor changes to S19.2.2, the only change affecting the required wording was the allowance of the words "PASS AIR BAG OFF."

Since the telltale requirements of the advanced air bag rule were based in large part on the requirements of an earlier NHTSA rule governing the installation of air bag on-off switches as original vehicle equipment, I believe it is useful to note that the earlier rule, published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 798), directly addressed the issue you have raised. In that final rule, NHTSA addressed Volvo's request that the telltale indicate the air bag status at all times. While deciding against adopting such a requirement, NHTSA noted that with respect to telltales for manual air bag on-off switches, manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional features "such as audible signals or extra lights as long as the Standards specific requirements are met." 62 FR 798, 805. NHTSA believes the same rationale applies to the telltale requirement for vehicles with automatic suppression systems, and the additional wording would be allowed under S19.2.2.

Subaru's design appears to differ from the type of design contemplated by Volvo only in that the words "PASS AIR BAG," which are constantly illuminated when the vehicle ignition is on, are backlit by a yellow light. The pertinent issue under the regulation is not the backlighting of the words "passenger air bag." Rather, the telltale requirements are designed to clearly notify vehicle occupants when the air bag has been turned off. Accordingly, no illumination of the word "off" is allowed when the air bag has been activated. While Subaru's proposed telltale design appears to meet this requirement, you may consider using a different color backlight to illuminate the words "PASS AIR BAG."

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/18/02

ID: aiam4684

"Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your letter that asked whethe Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires some form of certification on 'every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment.' The answer to this question is that manufacturers of replacement items of motor vehicle equipment that are regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must certify these items. The background for this response is provided below. Section 114 requires manufacturers or distributors of motor vehicle equipment to furnish dealers and distributors of such equipment with a certification that the items of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The first issue to be discussed, therefore, is whether replacement parts are encompassed within the definition of 'motor vehicle equipment.' 'Motor vehicle equipment' is defined at Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). This definition includes systems, parts and components of motor vehicles that are 'manufactured or sold for replacement.' The second issue to be discussed is what items of replacement motor vehicle equipment must be certified. In an interpretation letter of June 3, 1977 to Mr. Larry Stroble, this agency stated if there are no safety standards in effect regulating particular items of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of the equipment would not be required to certify in accordance with Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567). I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of this letter. Examples of items of motor vehicle equipment that have corresponding Federal motor vehicle safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), lighting (Standard No. 108), brake fluid (Standard No. 116), tires (Standard No. 109 and 117), glazing (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel covers (Standard No. 211). I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0473

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which yo asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.; The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirement for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.; You also suggested that 'if Option 1 is used, a test device must be a each designated seating position.' This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the 'mixing' of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht80-1.18

DATE: 02/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hugh A. West, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 22, 1979, addressed to Mr. Nelson Erickson. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our reply. Your letter asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, was intended to prevent a small child or animal left unattended in a parked automobile (model year 1973) from which the keys have been removed, from intentionally or accidentially moving the gear selection level from the "Park" position. The answer to your question is no, for the reasons noted below. You also requested a copy of any technical analysis that may have been done in the development of Safety Standard 114. Although the public docket contains analyses pertinent to later versions of Safety Standard 114 it contains none pertinent to any version of the standard applicable to passenger cars manufactured in 1973. The only analyses pertinent to these earlier versions of the standard are contained in documents which contain internal agency opinion and recommendations and thus are not publicly available.

When Safety Standard 114 was adopted in 1968 its stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use." (33 FR 6471, April 27, 1968). This goal was based on evidence which showed that: "cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals," (33 FR 6471, preamble). Neither the rule nor the preamble states that the standard was intended to accomplish any other goal.

As adopted, the standard required that all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, be equipped with a key locking system that (upon removal of the key) would prevent "activation of the car's engine or other main source of motive power; and either steering or self-mobility or both." Safety Standard 114 in its current form also provides manufacturers with this option. The preamble to the standard simply stated that a steering or self-mobility lock was needed in order ". . . to defeat car thieves who start cars with so-called 'master keys' and devices which bypass the [ignition] lock . . ." (33 FR 6471).

In light of the compliance option described above and the purpose of Safety Standard 114 as expressed both in the standard itself and in the preambles of various Federal Register notices, it appears that Safety Standard 114 was not intended to apply to the situation described in your letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

HUGH A. WEST, INC.

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

October 22, 1979

N. F. Erickson -- Safety Standards Engineer, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114

Dear Mr. Erickson:

I thank you for your letter of October 12, 1979 and the enclosed copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #114 as I requested.

The purpose of my inquires have been to determine whether there was any Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which would require an automobile manufactured in 1973 (1973 Chevrolet Vega) to have as part of its safety equipment, a device which would lock the gear selection lever in the "Park" position when the key was removed from the ignition switch after the lever had been locked. I understand that automobile manufacturers would have little difficulty in having such a locking system as part of the steering column gear-selection method.

The particular gear-selection lever on the car in question was a console model. The car was parked on an incline, the gear selection lever being placed in the "Park" position, the ignition key removed after the ignition system had been placed in the locked position, and the driver exited the vehicle. Thereafter, the car rolled down the incline and a 5 year old child within the car was drowned. When the car was recovered, the gear selection lever was in the "Neutral" position. It is unknown whether the gear selection lever was intentionally or accidentally removed from the "Park" position.

We are particularly concerned as to whether or not this problem was a recognized hazard which the standard was trying to correct. It is obvious that if the steering column were locked so as to prevent the steering of the vehicle, and any child, or an animal, left unattended in the vehicle could move the gear shift lever, the vehicle would obviously be set into motion on an incline with absolutely no control over its movement. It would then become an extreme hazard not only to a small child, as here, being within the vehicle, but other users of the highways and streets toward whom the uncontrollable mass of metal was moving.

If there are other standards which may be applicable to our particular situation, I would appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me. We would also appreciate your sending to us a Technical Analysis Study, if any were done, on Standard #114.

We sincerely appreciate your kind assistance.

Very truly yours,

Walter S Felton

cc: Thomas L. Woodward, ESQ.

ID: 1983-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc.

TEXT:

Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Caine:

This responds to your request for a clarification concerning a letter of interpretation issued by the agency with respect to the responsibilities of various parties after tires have been damaged by a fire and the manufacturer has determined that the DOT certification on the sidewall is no longer valid. Specifically, I stated in a February 24, 1983, letter to Mr. Jack Garvin that, in the event of fire damage to tires, the manufacturer whose certification appears on the sidewall must determine whether that certification is still valid after the fire damage. Further, I stated that if the certification is no longer valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires cannot be sold.

You stated that you understand this duty exists when the damaged tires are still within the control of the manufacturer. However, you have a problem with the interpretation when control of the damaged tires has passed from the manufacturer to a third party, such as an independent dealer or a salvage company. You noted that Goodyear has had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies, and salvage companies which try to sell tires after Goodyear has determined that the certification on those tires is no longer valid.

I certainly did not mean to imply in my previous interpretation that a tire manufacturer is required to physically seize fire-damaged tires in situations where physical control over those tires has passed to some third party. In those situations, the tire manufacturer can simply notify the controlling party that the tires can no longer be certified as complying with the applicable safety standard (Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and Standard No. 119 for all other tires for use on motor vehicles), and the tires cannot legally be sold. It would be helpful for enforcement purposes if the tire manufacturer were to forward a copy of any such notification to a controlling party to this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

As you correctly noted in your letter, section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397), prohibits any party from offering for sale or introducing into commerce any tire which the party knows does not conform to the requirements of the applicable safety standards. A party which has been directly informed by a tire manufacturer that a group of tires no longer complies with the applicable safety standard could not sell those tires or otherwise introduce them into commerce without violating section 108. Section 109 of the Safety Act subjects a party to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for a violation of section 108, and each tire sold in these circumstances would be a separate violation of section 108. Additionally, section S6 of Standard No. 109 prohibits the sale or introduction into commerce for any purpose of tires designed for use on passenger cars if those tires do not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. This would make it illegal for a third party to sell fire-damaged passenger car tires as farm-use tires or non-highway tires.

Please note that this letter does not address any responsibilities which the tire manufacturer or salvager/seller may have to a consumer who in good faith buys a fire-damaged tire. If you have any further questions in this area, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 22, 1983

Mr Frank Berndt -- NHTSA

Your recent opinion letter (copy attached) addressed to Mr Jack Garvin, Schaumburg, Illinois, concerning highway tires damaged by fire has come to my attention.

You indicate that if the tire manufacturer determines that its original certification is no longer valid because of fire damage, then it is the manufacturer's responsibility to remove the DOT symbol from the sidewall of the damaged tires.

We have no problem with the position you spell out so long as the damaged tires are within the control (title and possession) of the manufacturer. However, we do have a problem with respect to tires which have been sold (title passed) to independent dealers or resold by dealers to salvage companies or in the possession of a common carrier or its salvage company.

We have had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies and salvage companies who insist that there is a salvage value even though we have determined that the tires are no longer certifiable and should be scrapped.

It appears to me that the basic law 15 USCA S1397(a)(1) prohibits any person from selling a non-certifiable highway tire for resale unless the person did not have reason to know the tire was not certifiable. Accordingly, it would seem that when the manufacturer notifies a salvage company or common carrier that a tire is no longer certifiable, the responsibility for compliance with the law has shifted to the salvage company or common carrier involved. In addition, I have to assume that 49 CFR 571.109 S6. (nonconforming tires) applies in this situation and would prohibit a salvage company or common carrier from reclassifying a highway auto tire as a "farm use only" tire or "non-highway" tire.

Will you please advise me as to your position concerning the tire manufacturer's responsibility under the circumstances set forth above.

Sincerely

Attorney

T D Caine ph Attachment (2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc. omitted here.)

ID: 1985-01.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Cortez -- Marketing Director, Deco International Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Office of Chief Console N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. or Mr.,

Please inform me as to the proper procedure for certifying an entirely new device that will enhance the braking features of trucks and/or passenger vehicles.

Our product, when incorporated into the vehicles braking system will allow the driver to brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advance.

This will enable the driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear of a 'roll back'.

One simply brings their vehicle to a stop, and removes their foot from the brake pedal. Our device automatically engages, holding the vehicle motionless, until the accelerator is advanced.

In that this device must be installed in conjunction with the vehicles original brake system, we are concerned as how to properly certify the device.

Mechanically the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

Please forward any and all infomation pertaining to the certification requirements of such an 'aftermarket' device.

Thank you very much for your quick response and assistance.

Sincerely,

Ron Cordez Marketing Director

Mr. Ron Cortez Marketing Director Deco International Corporation 12612 Osborne Street Pacoima, California 91331

Dear Mr. Cortez:

This response to your letter asking about Federal requirements applicable to an aftermarket device designed to enable a driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear or a "roll back." Once the device is installed, the driver may brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advanced. According to your letter, the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to insure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the information provided in your letter.

The agency does not have any regulations covering hill-hold devices designed to be attached to the braking system of a vehicle. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the information provided in your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Requirements included in the standard include, among others, ones on stopping distance, split systems, and the ability of a baking system to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

Moreover, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et. seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

I have enclosed an information sheet which explains where to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht88-3.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES W. PIERSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06-2-88 RE DOT REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF SEATS (AUTOMOTIVE, TRACK, BUS, MASS TRANSIT); [OCC-2136; VCC-201]

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you made several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you.

You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinte rpretations that could arise with dynamic testing.

First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 20 8, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male.

When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthrop omorphic Test Dummies.

Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing

facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of i ts vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily resp onsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards.

Third, you stated that "laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed." You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before cer tifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures.

Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970.

Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, a nd is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me.