ID: nht89-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/02/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/12/88 FROM FRANK H. MILLER -- GARRY BABY PRODUCTS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter to me asking whether the "binding" you use of the edges of a seat cushion should be tested under Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, separately from the cushion assembly or as a composite with the other mate rials. I regret the delay in responding. You said that you currently test the binding separately, but would find it easier to test the binding "as a portion of a cushion assembly."

Paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact" must meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements when tested separately. Thus, if the binding is joined to the cushion assembly so that it does not adhere to the cushion at every point of contact, the agency would test it separately. If, on the other hand, the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact, paragraph S4.2.2 requires it to meet the performance requirements of the standard when tested as a composite with the other materials.

In your letter, you did not directly state whether the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact. However, we presume that you currently think it does not, since you said you test the binding separately from the cushion. I am enclosing c opies of two previous interpretations of Standard No. 302 that might be helpful in determining whether there is the requisite adherence. In a March 10, 1978 letter to Mr. Edmund Burnett, the agency discussed the application of S4.2.1 to a seat cushion c onsisting of vinyl stitched at varying internals to padding. In that letter, the agency stated that the vinyl, which did not adhere to the material at every point of contact, must be tested separately. On the other hand, a July 17, 1972 letter to Mr. S atoshi Nishibori concerned materials glued together, which NHTSA said would be tested by us as a composite.

Your inquiry follows our December 3, 1987 letter to you in which we said that thread that is used in the manufacture of a seat cushion may be tested as part of the component. We explained in our letter that although the agency recognizes that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302, NHTSA has determiend that it is more practical to test stitching as part of the material since the test apparatus cannot readily accommodate stit ching alone. I note that the issue you now appear to raise is whether your binding, which presumably does not adhere at every point of contact, may be tested as part of the cushion material (i.e., as a composite) in the same manner thread is tested. Th e answer to this question is that the agency would probably separately test such binding under S4.2.1.

We have no reason to believe that it is not practicable to separately test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact, as specified in Standard No. 302. In fact, your present procedure which tests binding separately indicates that S4.2.1 is practicable. Since the practicability problems arising when separately testing thread are not encountered when the binding is tested, the agency will test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact in the manner specified in Standard No. 302 .

This does not mean to say, however, that you are prohibited from testing the binding as a composite. Standard No. 302 does not require you to test your products using the test procedure set forth in the standard. The standard only specifies how the age ncy will conduct its compliance test for the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 302, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that its products will comply with the standard when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified therein.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 1926y

Mr. Frank Miller
Gerry Baby Products
12520 Grant Drive
Box 33755
Denver, CO 80233

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter to me asking whether the "binding" you use of the edges of a seat cushion should be tested under Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, separately from the cushion assembly or as a composite with the other materials. I regret the delay in responding. You said that you currently test the binding separately, but would find it easier to test the binding "as a portion of a cushion assembly."

Paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact" must meet the standard's flammability resistance requirements when tested separately. Thus, if the binding is joined to the cushion assembly so that it does not adhere to the cushion at every point of contact, the agency would test it separately. If, on the other hand, the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact, paragraph S4.2.2 requires it to meet the performance requirements of the standard when tested as a composite with the other materials.

In your letter, you did not directly state whether the binding adheres to the cushion at every point of contact. However, we presume that you currently think it does not, since you said you test the binding separately from the cushion. I am enclosing copies of two previous interpretations of Standard No. 302 that might be helpful in determining whether there is the requisite adherence. In a March 10, 1978 letter to Mr. Edmund Burnett, the agency discussed the application of S4.2.1 to a seat cushion consisting of vinyl stitched at varying internals to padding. In that letter, the agency stated that the vinyl, which did not adhere to the material at every point of contact, must be tested separately. On the other hand, a July 17, 1972 letter to Mr. Satoshi Nishibori concerned materials glued together, which NHTSA said would be tested by us as a composite.

Your inquiry follows our December 3, 1987 letter to you in which we said that thread that is used in the manufacture of a seat cushion may be tested as part of the component. We explained in our letter that although the agency recognizes that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 302, NHTSA has determined that it is more practical to test stitching as part of the material since the test apparatus cannot readily accommodate stitching alone. I note that the issue you now appear to raise is whether your binding, which presumably does not adhere at every point of contact, may be tested as part of the cushion material (i.e., as a composite) in the same manner thread is tested. The answer to this question is that the agency would probably separately test such binding under S4.2.1.

We have no reason to believe that it is not practicable to separately test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact, as specified in Standard No. 302. In fact, your present procedure which tests binding separately indicates that S4.2.1 is practicable. Since the practicability problems arising when separately testing thread are not encountered when the binding is tested, the agency will test binding that does not adhere at every point of contact in the manner specified in Standard No. 302.

This does not mean to say, however, that you are prohibited from testing the binding as a composite. Standard No. 302 does not require you to test your products using the test procedure set forth in the standard. The standard only specifies how the agency will conduct its compliance test for the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 302, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that its products will comply with the standard when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified therein.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:302 d:8/2/89

ID: nht90-4.62

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 20, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Julie Gonzalez -- Keiper Recaro Seating, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-21-90 from J. Gonzalez to P.J. Rice (OCC 5253)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1990 concerning automobile seats your company installs into vehicles on an aftermarket basis. Your letter states;

(t)o complete the installation we use an adapter bracket to mount our seat into the vehicle. In some vehicles we mount our seat onto our adapter bracket and then mount that assembly onto the original equipment manufacturer's seat track. In some of thes e cases the seat belt buckle is attached to the OEM seat. We would like to remove the OEM belt buckle from the OEM seat and attach it to our adapter bracket. ...

In other vehicles we must remove the OEM seat track and use a Recaro seat track. In these cases the Recaro Seat is mounted onto the Recaro seat tracks which mount onto a Recaro adapter bracket that mounts onto the floor. In this situation we would like to mount the OEM seat belt buckle to the adapter bracket which bolts to the floor.

You asked for a list and description of the tests and safety standards which must be met in both of these situations. In subsequent phone conversations with Mary Versailles of my staff, you emphasized that you are only concerned with the effect of movin g the OEM belt buckle, as you have previously determined that the seat itself complies with our standards. Therefore, this letter will be limited to addressing standards relating to safety belts.

The agency has issued the following safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the Unite d States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that you do not replace or alter the OEM safe ty belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard.

Since Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The general rule is that aftermarket equipment does not have to comply with vehicle standards. However, there is one statutory exception to this rule which might affect your modifications. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, S108(a)(2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

With respect to Standard No. 208, the safety belts and other related occupant crash protection features, potentially including automatic crash protection, are elements of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with this safety standard. The " render inoperative, prohibition requires your company to ensure that the vehicles in question will continue to afford the occupant protection required by Standard No. 208, even with a new seat installed and the OEM safety belt buckle repositioned. Since your proposed repositioning of the buckle will change the geometry of the safety belt system, it could certainly affect the occupant protection capabilities of the vehicle. Your company ought to carefully review the proposed repositioning of the buckle in light of the requirements of Standard No. 208.

With respect to Standard No. 210, the repositioning of the buckle could also raise questions under the "render inoperative" prohibition. The location and strength of the safety belt anchorages are elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 210. S3 of Standard No. 210 defines the term "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Since, according to your letter, the OEM buckle is attached to the OEM seat, we w ould consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Your modifications would move the anchorage to another location. The "render inoperative" prohi bition requires you to ensure that after repositioning the OEM buckle, the new attachment point complies with the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210 that applied to the anchorages in the original configuration of the vehicle's safety belts.

You also asked what kind of testing is required. The "render inoperative" provisions in the Safety Act do not require your company to test vehicles after you install the new seat and reposition the safety belts to ensure that the vehicle continues to co mply with all applicable standards. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision requires your company to carefully compare the installation with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210, to determine if repositioning the OEM buckle would result in the vehicle no longer complying with either of these standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam5272

"Dear Mr. Takacs: This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 i which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable: 1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209. 2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles, wire hooks, snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209. With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209. S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3377

Dear Mr. Wonders: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standar No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no.; Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses mus have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back.; The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing.; A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit i the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 24, 1990

FROM: JERRY RALPH CURRY

TO: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR OF CANADA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO JERRY R. CURRY, NHTSA, FROM D. H. BURNEY, AMBASSADOR OF CANADA TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990, expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment.

Canada is concerned that, under P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations wit h respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each.

Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies tha t commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehi cle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be *$125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than 150 percent of the dutiable value of the vehicle).

Your first request is that the agency "recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS." The 1988 Act was enacted on October 31, 1988, and became effective January 31, 1990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries.

However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the 1988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactur ed on and after September 1, 1989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is "substantially similar" to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for impor tation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover a ll passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, 1989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted.

Your second request is that we "exempt such vehicles from the fees." These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond pro cessing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the 1988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program . The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bo nd that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, 1990.

When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on el igibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $1,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee.

Canada's third request is to "exempt them from the bonding requirement." The 1988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or aban doned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, 1968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The 1988 Act prov ides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress.

The fourth request is to "exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens." This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers , and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the 1988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicl e if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer.

The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside t hat territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. "citiz en", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 1988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country.

This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we "allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada." Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the united States. However, vehicles modifi ed in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satis- factorily accomplished, before the confo rmance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated.

If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them.

Enclosure

ID: aiam4268

Dear Ms. Daniel: Thank you for the opportunity to assist the Washington Attorney Genera in his attempt to enact legislation intended to combat odometer fraud. I am in receipt of the second draft of the proposed legislation, a section-by-section analysis of the bill and your letter outlining the need for passage of state odometer legislation.; As you know, on October 28, 1986, President Reagan signed into law th Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, P.L. 99-579, which amends Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 *et seq*. Beginning April 29, 1989, a motor vehicle may not be licensed in a State unless the transferee includes with the application for title the transferor's title. If the transferor's title contains the space for the transferor to disclose the mileage as required by Federal regulation, the mileage disclosure must be included on the title and it must be signed and dated by the transferor. If the transferor's title does not contain a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage, the transferor must issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, the law provides that, beginning April 29, 1989, all motor vehicle titles issued must meet the following requirements.; >>>1. Titles must be set forth by means of a secure printing process o other secure process.; 2. Titles must indicate required mileage disclosure information. 3. Titles must contain space for the transferee to disclose, in th event of future transfer, the mileage at the time of such future transfer and to sign and date such disclosure.<<<; A copy of the Act is enclosed for your reference. We are aware that the titling and disclosure provision of the new Ac will require changes in many state motor vehicle titling laws and title forms. For that reason, the Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide assistance to any State in revising its laws to meet the new Federal criteria. It is our desire to cooperate with the states to the maximum extent possible, to assure a smooth and timely transition to the new Act.; NHTSA intends to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to implement the ne Act and resolve technical issues. Because that process will take several months, we recommended to the States through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that they may wish to defer changes to their vehicle title forms and titling procedures until the rulemaking has been completed. In that way, they will be in a better position to assure full compliance with the new Act and implementing regulations.; After reviewing the materials you submitted, I can understand the nee to enact odometer legislation in Washington as expeditiously as possible. The enforcement of strong State odometer laws serves as a deterrent to odometer fraud. At this time, due to our rulemaking action, I cannot make a determination that the proposed legislation meets the requirements of the new law. However, I am offering the following comments to point out inconsistencies between portions of the proposed State legislation and the new Federal law.; Section 3 of the proposed legislation concerns the issuance of odomete disclosure statements by owners, lessees and lessors. While Section 3 does not apply to vehicles leased for a period of less than six months, Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 defines a leased motor vehicle as 'any motor vehicle which is leased to a person for a term of at least 4 months by a lessor who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months.' Furthermore, under Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, lessors are required to provide lessees written notice regarding mileage disclosure requirements and penalties for failure to comply with them. The proposed legislation includes no analogous provision.; In addition to the above comments that pertain to the new Federal law I also offer the following comments regarding differences between the proposed State law and the Federal law and regulations now in effect.; While you assert that Section 7 of the proposed legislation 'provide for content of odometer disclosure statement, mirroring federal requirements,' there are some major variances. Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4(a)(3), requires the disclosure of the transferor's current address. In addition, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(b) requires that the odometer disclosure statement refer to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and shall state that incorrect information may result in civil liability and civil or criminal penalties. (Reference to State law is acceptable in lieu of a reference to Federal law.) Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(e) states that 'The transferee shall acknowledge receipt of the disclosure statement by signing it.' Neither the transferor's current address nor a penalty notice and signature are required by the proposed legislation.; Section 7(k) of the proposed legislation requires the disclosure o both miles and kilometers when the odometer is 'altered to reflect miles instead of 'kilometers.' This Agency has not required any similar type of disclosure. We have determined that 15 U.S.C. S1987 could be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. (To convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles, multiple (sic) the kilometer reading by .62.) It is NHTSA's position that transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; I would also like to clarify a point you made in your letter to Donn Stringer, Deputy Director, Department of Licensing. On page 2 of that letter, you state that the failure to 'make' an odometer disclosure or to 'submit' a false one would be a Class C felony and that there 'is no analogous provision in the Federal law.' This is incorrect. Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1988(b) states:; >>>No transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under this sectio or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.<<<; The phrase 'any rule prescribed under this section' refers to th Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580, which requires the issuance of an odometer disclosure statement containing specific information. Therefore, the transferor's knowing and willful failure to issue an odometer disclosure statement required by the regulation is a felony under 15 U.S.C. S 1990c, as amended by Section 3(b) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986.; I hope these comments assist you in your efforts to enact legislatio to combat odometer fraud.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1447

Dear Mr. Riechel: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our dispositio of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires 'no action' by vehicle occupants.; The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt fo restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.; The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a 'passive restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):; >>>The concept of an occupant protection system that requires 'n action by vehicle occupants' as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.<<<; The question of what constitutes 'no action by vehicle occupants' in vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.; Entry and exit action 'that requires no action other than would b required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle' means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.; The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once th occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any 'additional action' is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.; The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a huma occupant enter the vehicle without taking any 'additional actions' to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exits, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.; This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive bel system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4103

Dear Mr. Elvin-Jensen: This responds to your letter dated August 28, 1985, asking whether child booster seat marketed by your company complies with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. I regret the delay in replying to your letter.; The descriptive materials accompanying your letter indicate that you child seat is secured by a vehicle's belt system, and has no harness of its own. Standard No. 213 applies to all child restraint systems. Those systems are defined in S4 of the standard as including 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in motor vehicle (sic) to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' The information enclosed with your letter states that the child booster seat is intended to seat children weighing from 15 to 32 kg., which is equivalent to 33 to 70.5 pounds. This weight range includes children who weigh up to 50 pounds. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would apply to your product if it is marketed in this country.; You ask if Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems to hav their own harness. The answer is no. The specific requirements of the standard on child restraint harness systems only apply if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system. Thus, for example, section 5.4.3.3 does not require that each child restraint be equipped with a harness meeting the requirements of that section. Instead, it provides that 'each child restraint system . . .*that has belts designed to restrain the child*' must comply with those requirements. (Emphasis added.); Under S6.1 of the standard, your child booster seat would be teste with a Type I safety belt (i.e., lap belt) attached. Although abdominal loading is not specifically measured in the test, the agency is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child. The abdomen is, of course, the area of the body most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt in a crash. Thus, the agency believes that the lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the photograph of your child booster seat, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen, unless the seating surface of the restraint is designed to prevent submarining. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), a amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*., under which Standard No. 213 was issued, provides for self-certification by manufacturers instead of the type-approval or homologation process used in Europe and elsewhere. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. If you plan to market your child safety seat in this country, you should ensure that your child safety seat complies with all of the applicable requirements of the standard, including the certification requirements of S5.5.; Under the Act and our regulation, manufacturers also have th responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (sections 151-159). The Act defines a manufacturer as 'any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In the event that neither the importer nor the assembling manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, could be satisfied by either party.; In addition, there are two other regulations which affec manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551).; Copies of Standard No. 213, the Act, Part 566, Part 551, 19 CFR 12.8 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers are enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I have previously responded to your r equests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.

Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard, which provides that "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11 .1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a sli ghtly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.

You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requirement of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.

S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvature requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches o f coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 an d I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11 .3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impac t test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefly described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1983 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in det ermining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the s urface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.

Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is n ot necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear MS. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that; "Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." However the applicable items (illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us. we believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are,not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mentioned in the standard, such as following illuminations in Concrete; (1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals (3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS No. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as I11.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as I11.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

And we also believe that, no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation, considerably sharply projected armrests such as 111.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish 111.2 from 111.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant, we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability. Theref ore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest. INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides; "When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template (by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl, or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehic le is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE