ID: 23663Tunick_seat_bolster_DENIED_df

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078





Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about the pitch, roll, and yaw requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). I apologize for the delay in responding. We have restated your questions below, followed by our answers. As discussed, we do not agree with your suggestion that the seat cushion can be removed to meet the standard's requirements.

BACKGROUND

Standard No. 225 requires each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to have a child restraint anchorage system at each of two forward-facing rear designated seating positions (see S4.4(a) and (b)). The anchorage system must meet certain configuration, strength and location requirements. S15.1.2.2 of Standard No. 225 specifies use of a "child restraint fixture (CRF)" to locate the lower bars of an anchorage system. That paragraph specifies that, with the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion, the bottom surface of the CRF must have attitude angles within certain limits (with angles measured relative to the vehicle horizontal, longitudinal and transverse reference planes). (Pitch must be 15 10, roll 0 5, and yaw 0 10.) Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004, are permitted to meet the requirements of S15 of Standard No. 225 instead of the requirements of S9. We stated in a final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration that these pitch, roll and yaw requirements will be incorporated into the requirements of S9. 65 FR 46628.

S9.3 of Standard No. 225 requires that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted in a specified manner.

You state that it is difficult to fit the CRF and/or actual child restraints in the rear seats of some sports cars. You ask about the permissibility of installing a lower anchorage beneath each rear seat cushion. You state:

The child restraint anchorage system would be used by the vehicle owner by first removing the seat bottom cushion and storing it in the vehicle's luggage compartment. The CRF, during testing, and the child seat, during real-world operation, would then be installed so as to rest stably on the metal tub (floor) of the vehicle. The location of each anchorage would be labeled as required by FMVSS 225 and the method and need of removing the seat bottom would also be labeled (the seat bottom would most probably be attached by Velcro). * * *

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Is the Proposed System permissible if removal of the seat bottom cushion is necessary in order for the CRF to fit in the vehicle and/or to meet pitch, roll and yaw criteria?

We do not interpret Standard No. 225 in a manner that would permit removal of the seat cushion. S15.1.2.2(a) of Standard No. 225 specifies that the bottom surface of the CRF shall have specified attitude angles "[w]ith the CRF attached to the anchorages and resting on the seat cushion." (Emphasis added.) Under this provision, the seat cushion is not removed when measuring attitude angles.

In addition, S9.3 of Standard No. 225 specifies that each vehicle and each child restraint anchorage system in that vehicle shall be designed such that the CRF can be placed inside the vehicle and attached to the lower anchorages of each child restraint anchorage system, with adjustable seats adjusted as described in S9.3(a) and (b). S9.3(a) and (b) state:

(a) Place adjustable seat backs in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer; and

(b) Place adjustable seats in the full rearward and full downward position.

Neither of these provisions contemplate removing the seat cushion. Accordingly, we conclude that the seat cushion is not removed when measuring pitch, roll and yaw of the CRF. If your vehicle cannot meet the requirements with the seat cushion in place, the vehicle cannot be certified as meeting Standard No. 225.

Question 2: Is the Proposed System permissible if the CRF fits in the vehicle and meets the pitch, roll and yaw requirements with the seat bottom in place (i.e., not removed), but--

• The child seat itself, when installed, is unacceptably unstable (e.g., as regards pitch, roll, and yaw), and
• The lower anchorages must be located behind the middle of the seat back and thus potentially dangerous?

Our answer to the first part of your question is that we will evaluate the vehicle's compliance with the pitch, roll and yaw requirements using the CRF with the seat bottom in place. If all child restraints are "unacceptably unstable" despite the CRF fitting the seat, then that would suggest a design problem with the rear seat, and/or a problem with the CRF, since the device is intended to be representative of a child restraint. We would appreciate learning about any situation where the standard might permit vehicle seats and anchorage systems to be designed such that child restraints can be attached in an unacceptably unstable manner. Detailed sketches would be helpful, with vehicle dimensions included.

Our answer to the second part of this question is that an anchorage system would not be found to non-comply with the standard notwithstanding the location of the lower anchorages relative to an adult passenger's back. It should be noted, however, that you provided little information about any scenario under which the anchorages would be located "behind the middle of the seat back." With regard to passenger discomfort and safety in rear impacts, the vehicle manufacturer might want to consider using foldable or stowable anchorages, which are now permitted under Standard No. 225.

Question 3a: If the answer to either question 1 or question 2 is "no," could the vehicle manufacturer receive an exemption under S5(e)? If an exemption is available and is obtained, could the vehicle manufacturer still install the Proposed System on a voluntary basis?

S5(e) excludes certain rear designated seating positions from the requirement to provide a child restraint anchorage system at the position. To qualify for the exclusion, interference with transmission and/or suspension components must prevent the location of the lower bars of a child restraint changes system anywhere within the zone described by the standard such that the attitude angles could be met. Unless the situations described in your letter met those criteria, the exception would not be available. In response to the second part of your question, if the vehicle were excluded from the requirement to provide the lower anchorage bars because of impracticability, then by definition the bars would not be able to be installed, either voluntarily or to meet the provisions of the standard. Moreover, under S4.1 of Standard No. 225, each tether anchorage and child restraint anchorage system installed voluntarily or pursuant to the standard after September 1, 1999, must meet the configuration, location, marking and strength requirements of the standard.

Before closing, we would like to address a further issue you raised. In your letter and in other correspondence with the agency, you have expressed a belief that S9.3 is invalid because, by requiring the back seat of vehicles to fit the CRF, S9.3 allegedly violates a "no design standard prohibition." Your belief is mistaken. We seek to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are performance-oriented as possible, but if need be they may have the effect of imposing certain design requirements or limitations. The CRF is representative of a child restraint system. Just as we require lap and lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies to be capable of adjustment to fit occupants whose dimensions and weight range from those of a 5^th-percentile adult female to those of a 95^th-percentile adult male (S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209, 49 CFR 571.209), we require vehicle seats to fit the CRF to ensure better compatibility and fit between vehicle seats and child restraint systems to improve the performance of child restraints in protecting children. Further, S9.3 is performance-oriented, in that manufacturers retain flexibility in designing their vehicle seats as long as they allow placement of the CRF, and the standard does not specify dimensions or other features of the vehicle seat. Accordingly, it does not create a "design standard" that would be prohibited by statute.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/25/02

ID: 23667.drn

Mr. Mike J. Gower
Trico Products (Europe) Ltd.
High Street North
Dunstable
Beds. LU6 1UZ
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Gower:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the correct "seating reference point" to use for a designated seating position when applying Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, to passenger cars. You ask whether the seating reference point is "that point which is in the rearmost position of the total seat travel and if the total seat movement envelope is trapezoidal in side view . . ., that this required point would also be the lowest?"

Until April 8, 1993, the rearmost position of the driver's seat was required to be used for the determination of wiped areas A, B, and C in Standard No. 104. However, as explained below, this was changed by a 1993 final rule (44 FR 13021).

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 specifies the area of the windshield that must be wiped by the vehicle's windshield wiping system. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of the standard refers to SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, Passenger Car Windshield Wiper Systems. SAE J903a, paragraph 2.4(a), states that the wiped area on the windshield glazing surface is "defined and qualified" by the driver's seat in the rearmost position. It also states, "see Figure 1," which identifies "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position." Nonetheless, a March 9, 1993 final rule (copy enclosed), amended S3 of Standard No. 104 to substitute the term "seating reference point" for the term "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position." Specifically, S3 was amended to state: "The term seating reference point is substituted for the terms manikin H point with seat in the rearmost position and H point wherever any of these terms appear in any SAE Standard or SAE Recommended Practice referred to in this standard." Therefore, the term "seating reference point" replaces "manikin H point with seat in rearmost position" in Figure 1 of SAE J903a.

Definitions for terms used in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (one of which is Standard No. 104) are at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions. "Seating reference point" (SgRP) is defined as:

the unique design H-point, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which

(a) Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle;

(b) Has X, Y and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;

(c) Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh; and

(d) Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

The "Seating reference point" is not necessarily determined with the driver seat in its rearmost adjustment position. Instead, the SgRP may be located where the SAE J826 two-dimensional drafting template using a leg segment representative of a 95^th percentile adult male is positioned. If a seat is provided with adjustment positions to accommodate persons larger than the 95^th percentile adult male, any such adjustment positions would not affect the location of the SgRP. On the other hand, if the drafting template with the 95^th percentile leg could not be positioned in the seat because its rearmost adjustment is too far forward, the SgRP must be located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

You could continue to use the rearmost position of the driver's seat in determining the wiped areas in Standard No. 104, although those areas may be slightly greater than if you used the seating reference point as interpreted above. This conservative approach could provide a margin of compliance to ensure that all vehicles produced will meet the Standard's requirements.

You also asked whether the seating reference point was determined with the seat in its lowest adjustment point. SAE Jll00, June 1984, Motor Vehicle Dimensions (referenced above), paragraph 2.1, explains adjustments of the front seat position other than its rearmost normal driving position. It states that all other adjustable features, such as an adjustable steering wheel, and adjustable seat height, etc., shall be positioned in their normal driving position as specified by the manufacturer. Although a motor vehicle manufacturer may specify any seat height that would also be consistent with the fore-aft procedure for the seating reference point described above, you could use a variety of positions (full up, mid, full down, etc.) to determine the worst case (largest areas) for an additional margin of compliance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:104#571
d.1/9/02

ID: 23668.rbm

Mark S. Lore, President
Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation
51 Wentworth Avenue
Londonderry, NH 03053

Dear Mr. Lore:

In a letter dated October 9, 2001, you asked three questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter in certain ways a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle meets all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be "modifiers." The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the cargo carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. Simply stated, a vehicle's load carrying capacity is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight.

The number of designated seating positions used to determine the load carrying capacity may not be the same as the number of designated seating positions that were in the vehicle when the vehicle manufacturer or alterer assigned the GVWR. In many instances, one or more seating positions may be removed in order to make the modifications needed to accommodate a particular disability. When calculating the load carrying capacity under 49 CFR 595, if an original designated seating position is replaced by a wheelchair retention device that will be used to secure an occupied wheelchair, that position replaces the original designated seating position, i.e., 150 pounds must be allocated for that seating position but the weight of the removed seat may be deducted. If the original designated seating position is not replaced by another seat or a wheelchair retention device, it need not be considered as a designated seating position when calculating the load carrying capacity, and the weight of the removed seats, or other equipment, need not be considered.

The installation of a wheelchair retention device to restrain an unoccupied wheelchair as cargo does not qualify as a designated seating position, and a modifier would not be required to allocate a 150 pound capacity for that position. The vehicle modifier may include the weight of the wheelchair as part of the load carrying capacity. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains. Moreover, since wheelchair weights can vary by hundreds of pounds between manually operated and self-propelled models, a modifier must state the weight it used for any wheelchair included in its calculation of available load capacity. As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the customer should be able to provide the modifier with the weight of any wheelchairs that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked three questions about the effect of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595 on vehicle modifiers or alterers. Specifically, you asked:

1. If the modifier/alterer A adds 200 pounds, and modifier/alterer B adds 20 or more pounds - both doing that prior to final delivery, who, if anyone is responsible for notification to the consumer?

2. Often times conversion companies specializing in non-handicap equipment (RV's, custom vans, 4 wheel drive units, etc.) add in excess of 220 lbs. Or an amount that when added with a modifier will exceed the 200 pounds threshold. What are the requirements in the case in where there may be 3 or more modifiers each adding weight less than 220 pounds, but from aggregate level the amount exceeds 220 pounds? Who is responsible in this case for notification to the consumer?

3. Many times handicap equipment modifiers remove certain equipment and then add other equipment. The ruling in this provision would require that modifiers weigh each vehicle, and notify the consumer if the total added/deleted equipment exceeded 220 pounds. Is this the intention?

As noted above, Part 595, subpart C applies only to modifications made to accommodate a person with disabilities after the first retail sale. If the modifications were made prior to the first retail sale, the entity making the modifications would be an "alterer" and required to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. We anticipate that, since the alterer's certification will specify the GVWR and GAWR as altered and since the label will be placed next to the original certification label, any subsequent modifier will be able to assess whether the modification to accommodate a person with disabilities has resulted in a total reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lbs). The modifier will then be responsible for providing the required information to the consumer.

Similarly, any "conversion compan[y] specializing in non-handicap equipment" that alters a vehicle prior to its first retail sale is, again, an "alterer" responsible for placing an alterer's certification next to the original certification label. To the extent the vehicle has been modified after the first retail sale in a way that adds weight but does not affect compliance (such that no prior modification was required by Part 595), we anticipate that the owner of the vehicle or a modifier familiar with the base vehicle may be aware of the modification and that the modifier may be able to assess the amount of additional weight and gauge the extent to which the final modifications may have exceeded the original GVWR or GAWR. We expect that the modifier relying on Part 595 exemption will be able to assess whether the load carrying capacity of the vehicle, as wholly modified, has been reduced by more than 100 kg (220 lbs.) and will have sufficient experience and knowledge to determine in good faith whether the consumer must be provided with the Part 595 required information.

Part 595 was not intended to require the modifier to weigh each vehicle. It is intended, however, to ensure that if the consumer receives a vehicle that has a significantly reduced load carrying capacity, s/he will be aware of that fact so as not to overload the vehicle and experience tire, braking, suspension, stability, and/or steering problems. Any good faith method to determine the reduction in load carrying capacity may be used. Nonetheless, if the only means of determining whether the load carrying capacity has been significantly reduced (i.e., reduced by more than 220 lbs) is to weigh the vehicle, then we anticipate the modifier will do so.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/25/02

ID: 23685

J. Atary, Projects Manager
Elco Industries Ltd.
17 Haneviim Street
PO Box 1176
Ramat Hasharon 4711
Israel





Dear Dr. Atary:

This is in response to your fax dated October 14, 2001, in which you ask whether your Mobile Transformer is a motor vehicle that must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, the answer appears to be no.

In your fax, you describe the Mobile Transformer as a large transformer and the associated equipment, such as breakers, switch gears, and control cabinets, that are permanently mounted on a semi-trailer. The semi-trailer is oversized and requires permits from State Departments of Transportation and an escort vehicle when driving on public roads. Since the equipment is permanently mounted to the semi-trailer, the semi-trailer cannot be used to transport goods.

You state that the Mobile Transformer is not intended primarily for highway use. It normally stays at work sites the majority of the time and is infrequently transported on public roads between these sites. These work sites are permanent substations where the Mobile Transformer is brought for replacing broken down transformers or to enable maintenance work to be performed on the substation's permanent transformer.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes our agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has no authority to approve or certify any commercial product. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The term "motor vehicle" is statutorily defined as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

Whether we consider the Mobile Transformer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. For example, we interpret our statutory definition not to encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the statute we administer because the on-highway use is more than incidental.

Based on the available information, it appears that your Mobile Transformer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the Mobile Transformer uses the highway only to move between job sites and typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your device is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your Mobile Transformer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.






Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/16/01

ID: 23695.ztv

Timothy O. Bartlett, Vice President
Bartlett Industries, Inc.
214 Morgan Parkway
Zebulon, NC 27957





Dear Mr. Bartlett:

This is in reply to your undated letter to George Soodoo of this agency, which we received in mid-October 2001. Your company manufactures the Bartlett Safety Hazards (BSH), a product that activates a motor vehicle's hazard warning system "at any point of impact."

Enclosed with your letter were copies of letters from this Office on activation of hazard warning systems. In our letter to Karl F. Milde, Jr., dated November 9, 1987, we informed Mr. Milde that we saw no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined rate of speed as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (See S5.1.3 which prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that has an impairing effect on required lighting equipment). However, a series of more recent letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver (letters of February 15, 2001, to Paul Michelotti, February 29, 2000, to Eric Reed, and February 25, 2000, to Mark Steele). This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as "driver actuated."

The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, "we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point." Other past interpretations reflect our view that ambiguous signals may have an impairing effect on required lighting

equipment. Although we did not elaborate further in our letter to Mr. Steele, we meant that a device that automatically activates the hazard warning signals after a crash was not prohibited by S5.1.3.

You described the BSH as "impact activated hazard lights" without specifying the type or severity of the impact. Your letter implies that the BSH is activated in a crash rather than a low-speed impact such as may occur during a parking maneuver. You wrote that when the BHS is activated, "approaching cars are given a 'heads up' that an accident has just occurred." In addition, you stated that "BSH, especially in one-car accidents, give notice to passing motorists and/or police that an accident has just occurred." The BSH, therefore, appears to be a crash-activated system of the type deemed not prohibited by S5.1.3 in the letter to Mr. Steele. However, the fact that a device may not be prohibited under Federal law must not be represented to the public as Federal approval or endorsement of the device.

Manufacturers of equipment not prohibited by S5.1.3 should ensure that installation of the equipment does not cause a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applied to the vehicle when it was manufactured.

We understand that you have filed a petition for rulemaking for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to specifically allow BHS. You will be informed in due course by the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards whether the petition has been granted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/28/02

ID: 23723.ztv

Shigeyoshi Aihara, Project Manager
Regulation and Compliance
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado Isehara-City
Kanagawa-Pref.
259-1192 Japan





Dear Mr. Aihara:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, presented at the conclusion of a meeting in our offices that day with representatives of this agency. You supplemented the letter with an e-mail of October 29, 2001, to Richard Van Iderstine of the Office of Safety Performance Standards.

You have asked a question with reference to the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In pertinent part, S4 of Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

Ichikoh has designed a headlamp with a lens and reflector assembly "fixed with synthetic rubber hot melt, clips, screws, and clamps." Although the "lens is separate from" the reflector, your letter stated that it cannot be removed from the reflector assembly "unless clamps (10 portions) are broken." You state that "when a lens is damaged, it will be exchanged by the whole lamp assembly," and assure us that the lens cannot be removed without destroying the housing. However, you confirmed that the headlamp can be reassembled using the screws provided, and that the housing is not destroyed, only damaged to the extent that all the features that hold the lens are not present. You have asked whether this configuration is sufficient to comprise "a bonded lens and reflector assembly."

We have provided only four interpretations of this phrase. On July 13, 1987, we informed Dr. Ernst of Hella that a design in which the lens was joined to the reflector by three screws did not constitute "a bonded lens and reflector assembly." On December 24, 1990, we informed Herr Spingler of Bosch that if a lens could not be manually separated from the housing, we would consider the bond sufficient for purposes of defining "replaceable bulb headlamp. On March 8, 1995, we again wrote Herr Spingler, on this subject, informing him that "the intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp." This meant that, "if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced." Finally, on September 11, 1998, we responded to Mr. Muraoka of Koito with respect to a headlamp "whose lens is bonded not with one adhesive agent, but with using some screws or clamps." We informed Koito that its design would not be a replaceable bulb headlamp because the connection was divisible and impermanent.

In the Ichikoh design under discussion, the lens is fixed to the housing by ten clamps, two clips, and screws. If a lens is broken, you initially informed us that the entire headlamp assembly would have to be replaced, since the lens could not be removed without breaking the clamps. However, it appears from subsequent discussions that the design of this headlamp is such that the lens can be replaced using the screws, even though the clamps are broken. This, in essence, is the interpretation we provided Dr. Ernst in 1987 when we said that a lens held by three screws was not a bonded assembly. Also, the synthethic rubber hot melt serves not as a bonding agent but as a gasket, in a manner similar to an O-ring in the Ernst lamp. Thus, the Ichikoh design does not comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly" for the purpose of defining a "replaceable bulb headlamp."

Your letter depicts four alternative designs, and you have described two more in your e-mail. Each of these alternatives utilizes the same clip and clamp arrangement as the original design, and a variation of the screw design intended to make the screw less accessible. Although the intent is to make it less likely that the lens will be replaced separately, in no case is it impossible to do so. Therefore, none of Ichikoh's alternatives comprise a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

As we informed Herr Spingler in 1990, "the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable," and that "any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond." In view of our interpretations over the years, it is likely that only an adhesive agent will provide a bond that satisfies the definition.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
Ref:108
d.12/11/01

ID: 23729.ztv

Mr. Kevin Thies
26713 138^th Place, SE
Kent, WA 98042-8056

Dear Mr. Thies:

This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 2001, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We regret the delay in responding to you.

You quoted S5.5.4 which states in pertinent part "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You report that the stop lamps on your vehicle "will turn on upon initial application of the service brakes." However, "as I come to a stop, I let up a little bit on the brake pedal for a smooth stop. When I let up that little bit of pedal pressure, the brake lights turn off even though the service brakes are still applied." You ask whether your vehicles performance complies with S5.5.4.

Without conducting specified compliance testing, we do not have an opinion on the behavior of your particular vehicle. Manufacturers are required in good faith to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We will, however, comment on the general question of whether stop lamps may be deactivated while the service brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108 requires, as you have noted, that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes. We have also stated that implicit in the requirement that stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes is the requirement that they must be deactivated when the service brakes are not applied (letters of June 3, 1991 to Norman H. Dankert and of September 22, 1997, to Senator Phil Gramm, copies enclosed).

In interpreting S5.5.4, a distinction must be made between depression of the brake pedal by a driver and application of the service brakes. In a letter of May 8, 1991, to John E. Calow (copy enclosed), we observed that when a brake pedal is depressed, there may be a small amount of "free play" before the service brake begins to apply. We went on to say that we would consider lamp activation required "as soon as any measurable brake torque occurs." Consistent with this opinion, we would say that stop lamps should remain activated whenever any measurable brake torque exists.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.6/10/02

ID: 23769ogm

Mr. Sebastien Lamothe
Regulations and Standards
Heuliez
Bd Georges Pompidou
79140 CERIZAY (Poitou-Charentes)
France





Dear Mr. Lamothe:

This in response to your recent letter regarding the provisions of Standard No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact," as they relate to different convertible top configurations. Specifically, you wish to know if the requirements of Standard No. 201 apply to two different types of convertible roofs. One roof configuration, which your letter describes as a "coupe-convertible," consists of an articulated convertible roof in which rigid roof panels fold into the vehicle's trunk when the roof is down. The second configuration described in your letter is a "convertible" hard top, which you describe as a hard shell top that is intended to replace a folding convertible top during cold weather. Based on your understanding of Standard No. 201's definition of "convertible," and the provisions of S6.3(a) excluding convertible roof frames and linkages from Standard No. 201, you believe that the Standard would not apply either to removable hard top convertible tops or the "coupe convertible" articulated folding top.

For the reasons explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not agree with your interpretation. It is the agency's position that both convertible hard tops and articulated rigid folding convertible tops similar to the "coupe-convertible" top must meet the requirements of Standard No. 201.

S6.3(a) of Standard No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as the frame of a convertible roof. "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame.

In the case of a convertible hardtop or a rigid articulated folding top similar to the "coupe-convertible" top described in your letter, it is the agency's position that the top, with the exception of those components required to raise and lower the top or to latch it into position, must meet Standard No. 201.

NHTSA addressed the issue of detachable hard tops identical to the "coupe convertible" top you describe when it responded to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by ASC, Inc., which was prompted by the agency's April 8, 1997 final rule (62 FR 16718) establishing the requirements for Standard No. 201. The ASC petition requested that the agency modify the definition of convertible roof frame to include hardtop convertibles - i.e., convertible tops that may be raised or lowered but are constructed of rigid folding sections rather than a cloth skin on a rigid frame. In rejecting that request, the agency noted that there did not appear to be any reason to exempt hardtop convertible roofs from the requirements of Standard No. 201 (see 63 FR 19839, April 22, 1998). As we noted in a June 5, 2001 letter to Mr. Mitsuhide Kikkawa (copy enclosed), NHTSA believes that the considerations applicable to hardtop convertibles also apply to detachable hard tops. Therefore, it is our position that it is both reasonable and practicable to require a vehicle with a detachable hard top to meet the requirements of Standard No. 201.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.4/5/02

ID: 23774.drn

[ ]

Dear [ ] :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether Standard No. 114, Theft protection, would permit an automatic transmission vehicle with your companys electronically coded card-type device that provides remote entry. With certain caveats that are explained below, our answer is yes.

Before addressing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that your request for confidential treatment of certain information in your letter was granted in a letter dated January 11, 2002, signed by Heidi Coleman of my staff, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. We will make available to the public only the version of your letter which has been purged of all references to your companys identity, and which does not include the Attachments.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to render this interpretation. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue. Likewise, this interpretation may not discuss every requirement of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that might apply to your product. It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine the requirements that apply and certify the compliance of your product with those requirements. NHTSA determines the compliance of products with the safety standards in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding.

YOUR SYSTEM

In your letter, you state that the key-locking system enables automatic unlocking of vehicle doors when actuated, and the engine can be operated if the driver is carrying an electronically coded card-type device. When the card is inside a vehicle, the engine is ready for operation.

While the card is inside the vehicle, pushing an IGN-knob will activate the code matching process between the card and the vehicle. When the correct match occurs, the IGN-knob can be turned and the driver may turn the IGN-knob to positions other than the lock position to unlock the steering wheel, activate the vehicles accessories, and start the engine. You state that the IGN-knob has the five familiar positions of a conventional mechanical key layout (i.e., lock-off-ACC-on-start).

The engine starts when the IGNknob is turned clockwise to the start position. To stop the engine, the IGN-knob is turned counterclockwise to the ACC position. When it is returned to the lock position, the steering wheel is locked, the IGN-knob automatically retracts, and the electronic identification code is removed. You also state that the engine will not start if the card is outside of the vehicle, even if the code is in the system (i.e., IGN-knob is in the off or ACC position). You state that this feature is controlled by a system other than the electronic identification code.

Your letter also notes that an alarm and indicator light are provided to warn occupants not to take the card from the vehicle when the engine is still running. You note: If the card is taken from the vehicle, the engine cannot be restarted after the engine has stopped, unless the card is taken inside the vehicle again.

DISCUSSION

In an interpretation letter of January 30, 1997, to an unnamed company, we stated that Standard No.114 would permit a keyless entry system activated by an electronically coded card (similar to your companys system). We have followed that interpretation letter in addressing your keyless entry system, but have modified it with respect to the discussion of S4.5 of the standard.

Effect of Key Removal. At S4.2, Standard No. 114 states in part that each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents (a) the normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. A vehicle with your companys system would be permitted by S4.2 because the absence of the key (the code) prevents normal activation of the engine and steering of the vehicle.

Locked in Park. S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114 states that (with certain exceptions not relevant here) the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a park position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5.2, prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park or becomes locked in park as the direct result of removing the key. We have determined that a vehicle with your companys system would be permitted by S4.2.1(a) because removal of the key (identification code in the system) is accomplished only when the transmission is locked in park and the IGN-knob is turned back to the lock position, when the IGN-knob automatically retracts.

Consequences of Deactivating Engine or Motor. S4.3 states that, except when an automatic transmission vehicle is in park, the means for deactivating the vehicles engine or motor shall not activate any device installed pursuant to S4.2(b) to prevent the vehicles steering or forward self-mobility or both. Because no information was provided on this aspect of your system, we are unable to provide an opinion as to whether a vehicle with your system would meet S4.3.

Combinations. S4.4 of Standard No. 114 states that for each vehicle type manufactured by a manufacturer, the number of different combinations of the key-locking systems required by S4.2 shall be at least 1,000, or a number equal to the number of vehicles of that type manufactured by the manufacturer, whichever is less. Your letter states that the keyless entry system has more than 1,000 electronic ID code combinations. As such, a vehicle with your system appears to satisfy S4.4.

Driver Warning. S4.5 of Standard No. 114 states that a warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the drivers door is opened, except: (a) after the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) when the key-locking system is in the on or start position; or (c) after the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

Your letter explains that a few seconds after the driver leaves the IGN-knob in the off position, the KNOB indicator light will flash on the instrument panel and an audible alarm is activated to remind the driver to return the IGN-knob to the lock position. When the drivers side door is opened, the alarm specified in S4.5 is activated. If the door is closed without turning the IGN-knob to the lock position, another audible alarm is activated outside of the vehicle. You state your belief that these three audible alarms and the indicator will reduce the chance that the driver will leave the vehicle with the key in the ignition (i.e., that the code remains in the system).

Your system would be permitted by S4.5 because when the ING-knob is left in the off or acc positions and the door is opened, an alarm sounds. This situation is directly analogous to when a conventional key is left in the ignition in the off or acc positions and the door is opened. The addition of your two other alarms is beyond the requirement of S4.5; nonetheless, we appreciate your decision to have the warnings.

To the extent this interpretation of S4.5 is inconsistent with the January 30, 1997 interpretation letter, the earlier letter is superseded. The January 1997 letter discussed a keyless entry system that used the PASS-card, an electronically coded credit-card like device. On the issue of whether a vehicle with the PASS-card met S4.5 of Standard No. 114, we stated the following:

As long as the PASS-card is in the vehicle, the electrical systems are on and the key code will remain in the system, ready for the START button to be pressed. This situation is analogous to a keyed system being in the on position, ready to be turned to the start position. Therefore, as long as the PASS-card is in the vehicle, the exception in S4.5(b) applies and the warning need not sound when the door is opened.

Upon further consideration, we believe that the situation where the electronic code is left in a vehicle ignition system ready for the START button to be pressed is in fact analogous to the situation where a driver with a traditional metal key simply leaves the key in the vehicle ignition before opening the door. From now on, it is NHTSAs position that for keyless entry systems using an electronic code, the warning must sound when the electronic code remains in the system, the ignition knob is in the off or acc positions and the drivers door is opened. This position will apply to vehicles with keyless entry systems manufactured after the date of this letter.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:114

d.7/17/02

ID: 23815

Mr. Drew Larson
5414 Martin Road
Erie, PA 16509





Dear Mr. Larson:

This is in response to your e-mail expressing concerns about your motorcycle helmet with a plastic visor and mouth guard. In your e-mail, you state that, while you were riding a four-wheeled all terrain vehicle, you fell off the vehicle, and the helmet's visor broke. You claim that the helmet was "DOT approved" but "did not hold up to many of the standards."

Your letter describes some of the injuries you suffered as a result of your fall. I hope that you have recovered from those injuries and that you suffered no permanent injuries.

By way of background information, Federal law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation approves motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Motorcycle helmets are subject to FMVSS No. 218 (49 CFR 571.218), which specifies performance requirements for helmets to ensure that helmets reduce the likelihood of head injuries in crashes. The DOT symbol on the helmet is a certification by the helmet manufacturer, not the DOT, that the helmet conforms to FMVSS No. 218. The standard does not specify performance requirements for motorcycle helmet visors. There currently is no FMVSS that applies to the visor.

NHTSA investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. For information about our defect programs or to file a complaint report, you can log into http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ or call the DOT Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236). A NHTSA representative will record your report.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.2/11/02