ID: 11394

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1995 concerning the requirement in S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. That section provides that:

Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

You requested confirmation that this requirement would not apply to a seat that was equipped with a folding seat back to convert the seat to a bed.

You are correct. NHTSA interprets this requirement as applying only to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Therefore, "designated seating positions" that convert to a non-seating use do not have to comply with the labeling requirement of S4.4.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:1/4/96

ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:135 d:5/16/96

ID: 11412a

Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq.
Attorney at Law
2406 Auburn Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45219-2702

Dear Mr. Bakst:

This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.' 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. '30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer

may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#124 d:12/28/95

ID: 11413-2PJA

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your December 6, 1995, request for interpretation regarding the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 for voluntarily installed emergency windows. I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to Tom Turner of Blue Bird Body Company. I believe that the answer to his first question also provides an answer to your question. If you believe that it does not, or need clarification of this letter, please feel free to call me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Atelsek Attorney

Enclosure

ref:217 d:3/20/96

ID: 11414WKM

Mr. Alex Tartakovsky
Sales, Marketing Department
Unidex Group, Inc.
2400 Devon Avenue, Suite 205
Des Plaines, IL 60018

Dear Mr. Tartakovsky:

This responds to your letter of December 6, 1995, requesting information on any laws, standards, and/or regulations "covering snow chain use for roads and/or for motor vehicles." The short answer to your inquiry is that there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) or regulations regarding the use of snow chains.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. In this case, snow chains for use on motor vehicles would be considered motor vehicle equipment, defined at 49 U.S. Code '30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component." Thus, although NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of snow chains, the agency has not done so.

Some states regulate the use of snow chains, but this agency does not maintain such data. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 898-0145; FAX (202) 898-0745

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:VSA d:1/25/96

ID: 11417LOR.D2

Mr. John Lord
The Booster Seat Company Ltd.
P.O. Box 15-573, New Lynn, Auckland
New Zealand

Dear Mr. Lord:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.5.1(a) in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding.

As discussed below, it is our opinion, based on the information in your letter, that your child restraint would not meet S5.1.1(a).

Background You state in your letter that your company has developed a child restraint system which conforms to an Australian child seat standard. A U.S. company wishes to manufacture and sell the child seat in the United States. You have had the child seat dynamically tested in the U.S., and believe that the seat achieved Avery favorable results@ with regard to the injury criteria of Standard 213. However, S5.5.1(a) of the standard was a problem.

Section S5.1.1 sets forth requirements for child restraint system integrity. Paragraph (a) of that section states that when dynamically tested, each child restraint shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system . . . .

Your child seat, a belt-positioning seat under S4 of Standard 213, consists of a high density polystyrene (commonly called

Astyrofoam@) platform, covered by a foam seat cover. The platform raises a child occupant approximately four to five inches to better fit a vehicle=s Type II belt system. The styrofoam platform also has arm rests formed into it.

The child seat cracked during the dynamic test of Standard 213. You sent us a child seat showing the cracks. However, you believe the cracking of the seat should not be considered to be a violation of S5.1.1(a) because, in your opinion, it does not pose a safety problem:

Clearly cracking/splitting on blow molded plastic possesses a serious safety issue with the possibility of pinching, cutting, or stabbing the child. We are confident that polystyrene possess [sic] no such problem. By nature, all cracked edges are soft. In addition, the product is sold with a 3/8" (10mm) foam seat cover.

Discussion

After reviewing your submissions and other information, our answer is that the child seat would not meet S5.1.1(a). Because the cracks occurred in a load bearing structural element of the child seat, S5.1.1(a) applies. Each crack is a Apartial separation exposing . . . surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch . . . ,@ which is prohibited by S5.1.1(a).

This interpretation limits a previous agency interpretation of S5.1.1(a). In NHTSA=s July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman of Liability Research, Inc. (copy enclosed), the agency addressed whether edges exposed by the tearing of a restraint that was made of woodfiber violated S5.1.1(a), when the edges exposed by the tearing were not lacerating (due to the composition of the material) and not likely to come into contact with the infant. NHTSA said that S5.1.1(a) did not prohibit the tearing because:

. . . In the preamble of [the rulemaking document proposing the requirement], we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child=s excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) (Emphasis in text.)

In the Friedman letter, NHTSA focused on the highlighted text, stating that any partial separation resulting from the dynamic test Amust not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child.@ The agency did not examine the effect of partial separations on the structural integrity of the system. Nevertheless, the agency acknowledged that, @In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials.@

Your child restraint is formed from a single piece of styrofoam; there is no reinforcement of any kind. As you note, due to the material comprising the restraint, the child restraint Ais inclined to crack.@ With your child restraint, a failure in the material results in a failure in the structural integrity of the system. While the edges formed by the partial separations you identified might not form Asharp@ edges, the partial separations are an indication that the structural integrity of the restraint has not been maintained. Thus, we conclude that the restraint would not meet the requirements of S5.1.1(a).

I hope this answers your inquiry. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:5/3/96

ID: 11421ZTV

Mr. K. J. Sato
President & CEO
Tekno-Info Corporation
500 Trotwood Place
Louisville, KY 40245-4071

Re: Request for Clarification of S5.1.2(b)

Dear Mr. Sato:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, asking for interpretation of paragraph S5.1.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your request covers both the present version and the amended one which becomes effective March 1, 1996.

Paragraph S5.1.2 (1996) requires plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors to conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91. However, exceptions to this general requirement are set out in subparagraphs (a) through (g). You ask whether plastic materials which conform to J576 JUL91 except for one of the appearance requirements (e.g. delamination) "are considered in compliance with S5.1.2(b) and can be used for lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors)."

S5.1.2(b) states that "[a]fter the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface luster of plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastic;." The exception to paragraph S5.1.2 set out in S5.1.2(b) is the substitution of the 1992 version of ASTM D 1003 for the 1977 version specified in J576 JUL91. This exception does not affect the basic requirement of paragraph S5.1.2 that plastic materials meet all the appearance requirements of J576 JUL91 including retention of lamination.

You have asked whether this clarification also relates to paragraph S5.1.2(b) as in effect until March 1, 1996. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.1.2 of the current version is identical to the later version except that it refers to the May 1970 version of SAE J576, while the reference in S5.1.2(b) is to the 1961 version of ASTM D 1003. SAE J576c May 1970 also requires that no delamination appear after the outdoor exposure test.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:2/1/96

ID: 11422WKM

Clifford C. Sharpe, Esq.
Post Office Box 8116
Mobile, AL 36689

Dear Mr. Sharpe:

This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation, Legal Division, which was forwarded to this agency for reply. You asked whether there are regulations addressing the sale as new of a tire that was manufactured five years previously, and whether we are aware of any studies or information regarding the effects of aging on an unused tire.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires. This statute requires each person selling a new vehicle, or item of equipment covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. Once a vehicle or item of equipment has been sold to its first retail customer, the seller's responsibility to sell a certified product terminates. See 49 U.S.C. '30112. Regulation of the sale and use of a used product becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

We understand your first question to ask whether NHTSA regulations were violated when a tire manufactured in 1986 was purchased as "new" in 1991. The answer is no. NHTSA has no regulation requiring a tire to be sold within a certain amount of time from its date of manufacture. You might wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information on the appropriateness of such a sale under consumer protection regulations. The telephone number for the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection is (202) 326-2476.

With regard to your second question, NHTSA does not have or know of any studies specifically addressing the effects of aging on a new tire. It is known, however, that heat, ultra-violet and ozone in particular can, over time, degrade rubber. Thus, although tire manufacturers blend antioxidants,

antiozonants, waxes and carbon blacks with their natural rubber compounds to resist tire degradation, what is most important are the conditions under which the new tires are stored. For example, if tires are stored in direct sunlight, in extreme heat or cold, or in close proximity to air filters, the rubber in the tires will degrade faster than if they are wrapped and kept in a temperature and humidity-controlled environment.

For additional reference sources, you may be interested in a comprehensive manual published under the auspices of NHTSA entitled, Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, DOT HS 805 952, August 1981, available from

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 (202) 783-3238

This volume is a highly detailed compilation of sources discussing every aspect of tire production. It does not specifically discuss the aging of tires once they have been manufactured, but it does discuss the various factors that contribute to the degradation of the rubber compounds in tires. In addition, you may call or write

Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) 1400 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-4800

The RMA is an association of various tire manufacturers and may have available some industry data on this issue.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:109 d:2/2/96

ID: 11435ZTV

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH

FAX 49-7121-35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

We have received your FAX of December 18, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 "to achieve both high- and lowbeam of a headlamp with only one single light source?" If the answer is yes, you would like to know which photometric requirements are applicable, saying that, in any event, it will meet the photometric requirements of any beam in which it is operated.

Use of a single light source (which we interpret to mean a single replaceable light source with a single filament) to provide both beams is not prohibited. While not specifically identified, it is permissible in either integral beam headlighting systems specified in paragraph S7.4 of Standard No. 108 or replaceable bulb headlighting systems of S7.5. Each such headlamp in a two-headlamp system is required by S7.4(a)(2) to be designed to conform to the photometrics of Figure 17A or Figure 27 for integral beam systems, or either Figure 17A or Figure 27 for replaceable bulb systems, depending on the type of light source used.

If this is a new type of replaceable light source, the relevant information required by Part 564 for such light sources would need to be submitted in advance of its use, in accordance with that regulation.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/29/96

ID: 11445JEG

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection,@ with respect to cut-off devices for air bags. Your letter addresses NHTSA's May 1995 final rule in which we decided to permit manufacturers, until September 1, 1997, the option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in certain passenger cars.

You ask whether a system you have developed "qualif[ies] as an automatic cutoff, and therefore should be permissible under FMVSS 208." The following discussion explains that the system you describe is permissible under FMVSS 208 and that it is unnecessary to determine whether the system is "automatic."

You described your system as consisting of:

. . . a special rearward-facing child seat which, when properly installed in the vehicle, disables the passenger airbag. . . . Attached to the child seat is a special strap and buckle tongue. The vehicle is equipped with a buckle receiver installed under the front of the passenger seat (installed upon request by a Porsche dealer). When the buckle tongue is inserted into the buckle receiver, a signal is sent to the airbag control unit disabling the passenger airbag. Since the disablement function is engaged during the process of installing the child seat in the car, and is disengaged as part of the process of removing the child seat from the car, we believe it qualifies as Aautomatic.@

You also stated that Asince the special buckle is permanently attached to the child seat, the air bag can be disabled only when the child seat is properly installed,@ and that Athe buckle is different from the other seat belt buckles used by Porsche, so disablement of the air bag using a normal seat belt is not possible.@

In analyzing whether your device is permissible under Standard No. 208, it is not necessary to determine whether the device is "automatic" or "manual." That dichotomy, which was used by the agency in previous discussions of cutoff devices, simply reflects an underlying inquiry as to whether a given cutoff device would create the possibility of a vehicle being tested under Standard No. 208 both with the device in the on position and with the device in the off position. The particular manual devices considered by the agency during its rulemaking all created that possibility. Your device, whether "manual" or "automatic," does not raise that possibility.

Prior to the rulemaking to permit certain manual cutoff devices, Standard No. 208 did not explicitly address cutoff devices. The issue arose in response to growing concern about the danger to infants in rear-facing child seats from passenger side air bags. The possibility of manufacturers providing certain kinds of manual cutoff devices (e.g., on-off switches) raised a test condition issue. The standard=s dynamic crash test could be run with the device on or off, and the issue was which way the test should be run. Based on the language and purposes of Standard No. 208, NHTSA concluded that the dynamic crash test requirement must be met regardless of whether a manual cutoff device was on or off. Since the standard=s crash test requirements presumably could not be met with the air bag deactivated, the standard effectively prohibited these manual cutoff devices. See 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994.

Based on the information provided in your letter, a vehicle equipped with your system would not be tested with the air bag deactivated. Your device operates in a fundamentally different manner from the type of manual device discussed in the recent rulemaking. This is because, with your device, the only situation in which an air bag would be deactivated is when a child seat is located in the front seat. Since the Standard No. 208 test is conducted only with a 50th percentile male dummy located in the front seat, a vehicle equipped with your device could satisfy Standard No. 208 without creating the possibility of a test condition in which the air bag is deactivated.

It is true that this result is consistent with the agency's description of devices we characterized as "automatic." In the October 1994 notice, NHTSA explained that "automatic" cutoff devices were allowed by Standard No. 208. The agency contemplated that Amanufacturers would design these devices so that they would automatically ensure that the front passenger air bag is activated during the barrier crash test. . . [whenever]. . . a 50th percentile adult male dummy is in the front seat.@ So while there is the similarity that Standard No. 208 would be met without two possible test conditions, our concept of "automatic" presupposed a system meeting the Standard No. 208 tests with the 50th percentile male dummy in the front seat.

Similarly, as NHTSA explained in a June 14, 1995, letter to GenCorp Aerojet, Standard No. 208 Adoes not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard.@ The agency noted that these conditions include a specified barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat.

I should add that the rear-facing child seat you describe is a Achild restraint system@ as defined in Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems@ (49 CFR '571.213), and thus subject to all applicable requirements of that standard. Further, in a compliance test governed by the requirements of Standard 213, NHTSA will test the child restraint using only a vehicle lap belt to attach the system to the standard seat assembly used for such tests. The special strap and buckle will not be attached. (See S5.3.2 and S6.1.2.1.1(a).)

I would like to conclude by noting that, in our rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices, we decided to permit such devices for only a limited period of time. In the intervening time, we believed it was possible that manufacturers could develop and introduce fully automatic cutoff devices, i.e., ones that would work without any action by the driver and for all rear facing infant restraints, as well as in other special situations where it would be beneficial to deactivate the air bag. We remain hopeful that such systems will be introduced in the foreseeable future. In the short term, however, we recognize that a system such as the one you describe could provide safety benefits. While drivers would need a special infant restraint with an extra buckle and would need to remember to latch the buckle, the system would provide a means by which the driver could deactivate the air bag while transporting a rear facing infant restraint in the front seat.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at the above address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/15/96