ID: 18432.drn

Mr. Andreas Geis
Bosch
Abteilung/Dept.: K4-RS/EWR5
FAX: GERMANY 7223/82/2310
FAX: (011) (49) 7223/82/2320

Dear Mr. Geis:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of metric conversions to Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You wish to know whether the measurement of 625 millimeters (mm) specified in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" at S3, 571.104, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is a typographical error. You state that depending on whether a conversion factor of 25 or 25.4 mm to the inch is used, the metric measurement could be 625 or 635 mm. You state that "10 mm would mean a considerable difference to the position of areas A, B, and C on the windshield."

As explained below, in part because of your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has amended the measurement in the definition of "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm. We agree that the 10 mm difference between 625 mm and 635 mm could result in a substantive change to Standard No. 104, a result that the agency did not intend when it converted English measurements to metric measurements.

In changing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to metric measurements, NHTSA made a policy determination that, in order to arrive at measurements that would be easiest to work with, it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. To illustrate, in converting an inch, the equivalent measurement in the metric system would be 2.5 centimeters, while the exact conversion would be 2.54 centimeters. (See Federal Register notice of April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14691).) The agency also did not intend to make any changes in the stringency of the affected safety standards.

In accordance with regulatory procedures, before the Standard No. 104 metric conversion measurements were made final, NHTSA gave the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. In a Federal Register notice of March 15, 1994 (59 FR 11962), NHTSA proposed that the 25 inches specified in "Glazing surface reference line" be converted to 625 mm. NHTSA did so in accordance with its stated policy that it would generally use equivalent conversions, not exact conversions. Thus, in making the conversion, it multiplied 25 inches by 25 mm, not 25.4 mm.

Upon receiving your letter, NHTSA reexamined the conversion of the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line." It was determined that this is an instance where the exact conversion should have been used, to avoid making a substantive change in the standard. Thus, in a Federal Register correction notice of September 24, 1998, (63 FR 50995, copy enclosed) NHTSA corrected the measurement in "Glazing surface reference line" to 635 mm (see p. 51000). In changing the measurement from 625 mm to 635 mm, NHTSA stated that: "because the glazing surface reference line centers the windshield wiper path on the windshield, a difference of 10 mm could result in a different wiper path center, substantively changing the Standard." (63 FR 50996). The changes in the correction notice will take effect on May 27, 1999, but immediate optional compliance is permitted as of September 24, 1998.

You also stated that the "inch measurements in tables I through IV appear to be converted at 25.4 mm per 1 inch and then rounded to the nearest full 10 mm." You are correct.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. In the future, it would be helpful if you would provide a mailing address for response. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:104
d.3/4/99

ID: 18433.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to special seat belt installations in a 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz and a 1991 300SE Mercedes-Benz. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies are needed to accommodate two severely obese drivers and a passenger. You explain that the drivers in both cases are extremely obese and cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of their large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit them. You explain that you also need to install an extra-long belt assembly in the 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz to accommodate a severely obese passenger. You indicated that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

• the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;
• the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;
• no certification label is attached.

As explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assemblies may be installed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly to accommodate the condition you described. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

As you are aware, our agency is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. Further, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety seat belt assemblies.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99

ID: 18462.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636, Japan

Re: Motorcycle stop and taillamp arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1998, asking for our advice on a motorcycle stop and taillamp system that Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. is developing.

Stanley presents two hypothetical rear lamp arrangements for which it seeks an opinion on how it should decide the number of lighted sections that should be grouped for the purpose of determining photometric compliance, that is, "whether all the lighted sections of the same function (tail or stop lamp) installed on both sides should be grouped, or the lighted sections installed on each side should be grouped." Specifically, "we would like to have your advice how we should consider the number of the lamp (one lamp with four or six lighted sections spread over the rear side of the vehicle or two lamps with two or three lighted sections on each side) in such cases."

Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have one stop lamp and one taillamp but permits it to have two stop lamps and two taillamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The stop lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J586 February 1984, and the taillamps, those of SAE Standard J585e September 1977. Neither of these standards differentiate between lamps for motorcycles and lamps for other types of motor vehicles. Therefore, compliance with the photometric requirements of the two SAE standards is determined in the same manner for all motor vehicles equipped with stop lamps and taillamps.

Table 1 of each SAE Standard establishes photometric requirements for lamps with one, two, and three lighted sections. Footnote 3 to Table 1 of SAE J585e and Footnote d to Table 1 of SAE J586 refer to a "multiple device" lamp which "gives its indication by two or more separately lighted sections which may be separate lamps." The photometric values "are to apply when all sections" which provide the signal are considered as a unit except when the dimensions between optical centers exceed 560 mm for two-compartment lamps or lamp arrangements, and does not exceed 410 mm for three-compartment lamps or lamp arrangements.

Type 1 depicts a system of six combination stop/taillamps. Two lamps are mounted on each side of the motorcycle and a third lamp is mounted below the two lamps. The distance between optical centers of the innermost upper lamp and the lower tail/stop lamp is 390 mm. The distance between the optical centers of the outermost and innermost upper lamps is not specified but is less than 390 mm. The distance in optical centers between the outermost upper lamp and the lower tail/stop lamp on each side is not specified but, if the drawing is to scale, it appears to be 390 mm.

In the Type 1 arrangement, the optical centers between the innermost upper lamp and the lower stop/taillamp on each side of the motorcycle, or between the innermost upper lamps on each side of the motorcycle, are 390 mm apart. Thus, each pair comprises "multiple devices" whose photometric requirements are those that apply to single lamps with two lighted sections. However, because more than two sections exist (three or six) in this design, one must determine whether there is more than 410 mm between optical centers. The drawing indicates that the optical centers of the three combination lamps are all within 410 mm of each other. Thus, Stanley can group three lamps on each side as a single three-compartment lamp.

The drawing also shows that the distance between optical centers of the innermost upper combination lamps on either side of the motorcycle is 390 mm. However, no dimension is given for the distance between the optical centers of either of the two upper lamps on one side of the motorcycle and the lower lamp on the other side, or for the distance between the optical center of the lower combination lamps on each side of the motorcycle. If the distance is not more than 410 mm between the optical centers of any of the six lamps, Standard No. 108 permits this arrangement to be considered a single lamp with more than three compartments.

Type 2 depicts a system with two combination tail/stop lamps mounted vertically adjacent to each other on each side of the vehicle. The distance between the optical centers of the upper lamps on each side of the vehicle is 520 mm. The distance between the optical centers of the lower lamps in the two-lamp array on each side of the vehicle is not stated but appears to be at least 520 mm. Type 2 also depicts a lower mounted stop lamp whose optical center is 340 mm from the optical center of the lower combination tail/stop lamp on the same side (the distance to the optical center of the upper lamp is not stated but is less than 560 mm). The distance between the optical center of the lower stop lamps on each side is unstated, as is the distance between the optical center of the lower stop lamp on one side of the motorcycle, and the optical centers of the two combination tail/stop lamps on the other side of the vehicle. However, the distance appears to be more than 560 mm.

In the Type 2 arrangement, the two combination tail/stop lamps on either side can be considered a taillamp with two compartments, but because the optical centers of the taillamps on the right and left are greater than 410 mm apart, the four lamps do not constitute a single lamp that comprises more than three compartments. Similarly, the three stop lamps on either side can constitute a single three-compartment lamp. However, the optical centers of some of the six stop lamps are greater than 410 mm apart and this array cannot be considered a single lamp with more than three compartments.

We note that your questions pertain to the use of "all the lighted sections of the same function" in each Type and therefore we have not addressed how photometrics might be measured when less than all lighted sections of the same function are used for compliance purposes (e.g., use of the upper pairs of stop lamps in Type 2).

We hope that this explanation is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/20/98

ID: 18464.ztv

Mr. Ralf Wohl
EMB Incorporated
6780 Depot Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Mr. Wohl:

This is in reply to your fax of July 29, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to your electric motorcycle.

Your first question is whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control. The answer is yes; as you have noted, S5.1 states that "Each motorcycle shall be equipped with a supplemental engine stop control, located and operable as specified in Table 1" (our emphasis). You have also asked whether the operation of your control, as you have described it, "is adequate for this purpose." As you have also noted, "Operation - Column 3" of Table 1 is blank. This means that Standard No. 123 does not specify how the supplemental engine stop control shall be operated. This choice is left to the manufacturer but obviously it must be a control that provides an alternative means of stopping the engine. On your electric motorcycle, the primary stop control is the twist grip handlebar on which the throttle is returned to the off position. If the throttle sticks in the open position, the propulsion system may also be overriden and deactivated by application of the brakes. We view this as a "supplemental engine stop control" within the general meaning of the term.

You also tell us of your wish to manufacture motorcycles for a limited time using "an off the shelf 28V military headlamp that does not meet all the photometric requirements for a motorcycle per FMVSS 571.108," and ask whether a waiver is possible. I enclose a copy of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555) under which manufacturers of motor vehicles, including motorcycles, may apply for temporary exemptions from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this process takes from three to four months because of the necessity to publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for comments on the application.

This may not be responsive to your situation since it is possible that your technical difficulties will be solved by then. Other than Part 555, we have no authority to grant a waiver from compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:123
d.11/12/98

ID: 18475-2.drn

Dear <Confidential>

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of how S5.1 of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection applies to your company's planned passenger car with a new side door system feature. As explained below, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) for the car must not exceed the 90 g requirement applicable to passenger cars with two side doors.

Your new side door system feature can generally be described as follows:

The side door system is that of a conventional 2-door vehicle with certain variations. The front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of the side door on a conventional 2-door vehicle. Access to the rear seat is possible using the front portion of the side door system alone. The side door system also includes a narrow rear access door panel. This panel cannot be opened independently of the front portion of the side door system. There is no structure between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

I note that this type of side door system could be used on one or both sides of a vehicle. For ease of discussion, we will address the situation where it would be used on both sides. However, our interpretation would not differ if the system is used on one side of a vehicle.

Standard No. 214's dynamic performance requirements are set forth in paragraph S5. The performance requirements for passenger cars differ for 2-door cars and 4-door cars. More specifically, under S5.1, the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) may not exceed 85 g for passenger cars with four side doors, and 90 g for passenger cars with two side doors.

The issue raised by your letter is whether passenger cars equipped with your new side door system would be considered 2-door cars or 4-door cars for purposes of S5.1. Put another way, the issue is whether the front portion of the side door system and the rear access panel would be counted as separate doors in determining whether the vehicle is a 2-door car or 4-door car.

We note that this issue is not directly addressed by the language of Standard No. 214. Among other things, the standard does not include a definition of "door." It is therefore especially appropriate, in interpreting the standard, to look to the purposes behind the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-door cars.

In the preamble to the final rule establishing the different performance requirements for 2-door cars and 4-doors (see 55 FR 45722; October 30, 1990), the agency provided the following explanation:

Another important issue, however, is technological feasibility. In particular, based on its review of the record, NHTSA is concerned about the ability of manufacturers to achieve TTI(d) lower than 90 g for all of their two-door cars, and lower than 85 g for all of their four-door cars.

NHTSA believes that it is generally more difficult for manufacturers to achieve lower TTI(d) for two-door cars than for four-door cars. The reason for this is that the side structure and geometry of two-door cars is different from four-door cars. For example, since the door on a two-door model is typically wider than on a four-door model, it is more difficult to design as strong a structure for the door on the two-door model. Taking into account the confidential data submitted by the manufacturers and other available data, the agency has six sets of data on two-door and four-door versions of the same model. These data indicate that the driver dummy injury measurements in a two-door car are about 14 percent higher than in a four-door car. NHTSA also observes that of 22 two-door cars for which the agency has data, only one had driver TTI(d) less than 80, only two had less than 85 g, and only five had less than 90 g.

(55 FR 45746-45757.)

The primary rationale for the slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars was thus the difference in side structure and geometry of 2-door cars and 4-door cars, including but not limited to the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars.

The side structure and geometry of the car design at issue is comparable to that of a typical 2-door car rather than a 4-door car. As discussed above, the front portion of the side door system is identical in structure to that of a conventional 2-door vehicle, and access to the rear seat, using the front portion of the side door system alone, is possible. The front portion of the side door system, by itself, thus has the width of the wider doors typically used for 2-door cars. Moreover, there is no structural component between the front portion of the side door system and the rear access door panel.

Given that it is unclear from the language of Standard No. 214 whether the rear access door panel should (considering its small size) cause the vehicles in question to be regarded as 4-door cars, and given the new side door system has the same characteristics that led the agency to establish a slightly higher TTI(d) limit for 2-door cars, the agency concludes that the vehicles should be considered 2-door cars for purposes of determining S5.1's applicable TTI(d) limits.

I note that because this interpretation is based in large part on the policy determinations behind establishing different TTI(d) limits for 2-door and 4-door cars, it should not be viewed as precedent for how we would interpret the term "door" in other contexts.

NHTSA grants your letter's request for confidential treatment of certain information and will keep the identity of your company confidential. The information in publicly available copies of the letter will be redacted.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:214
d.10/1/98

ID: 18558.ztv

Mr. Jim Ashdown
E & D Manager
Magnetti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WS11 3LP
England

FAX 9-0111543466325

Dear Mr. Ashdown:

This is in reply to your fax of August 6, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Because of the need to coordinate interpretations of Federal motor vehicle safety standards with other Offices of this agency, we were unable to respond by "return fax" before now.

You have two questions and they relate to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask for confirmation that "paragraph S.7.8.5.2.C is the correct section for tamper proof V HAD systems." We confirm your understanding. Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) requires that headlamps with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with their calibration permanently fixed by the headlamp manufacturer.

Your second questions is whether there is "a requirement now for optical centre markings on rearlamps similar to S.7.8.5.3.f on headlamps." There is no such requirement. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f) requires such markings only on headlamps. There is no requirement in Standard No. 108 that the optical center be marked on any lamp other than a headlamp.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 18559.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Currie
Senior Vice President
Fiber Light Solutions, LLC
1408 One Hancock Plaza
Gulfport, MS 39501-1980

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 12, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, seeking an opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statutes, regulations, and standards, regarding the legality of "FATBOYZ," a product of your company.

You reference a letter from this Office dated January 31, 1997, in which we informed you that we considered an earlier version of this product to be a supplementary side marker lamp, and advised you that the color of the supplementary lamp must not conflict with the color required for original equipment side marker lamps by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

FATBOYZ may be wired to illuminate either red or amber "so as to agree with the vehicle Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) side marker lamp color." On trailers whose overall length is 30 feet or more, "the forward half will be amber, and the rear half red." There is a "color cruiser" version which is "not capable of flashing," available in either amber or red, "to be installed matching the OEM color of the vehicle side marker lamps."

As you have described FATBOYZ, the new system appears to be consistent with the advice we have given you previously. It appears permissible as original or aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment under Standard No. 108 and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. As a supplementary side marker lamp, it may flash with the turn signal lamps, but it is not required to. The color must be red for FATBOYZ mounted on the side of the box of pickup trucks, and, on trailers, amber up to the midpoint of the trailer, and red to the rear of the midpoint. This is required regardless of the overall length of the trailer.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/22/98

ID: 18560.ztv

Mr. Malcolm R. Currie
President and CEO
Currie Technologies Inc.
7011 Havenhurst Ave., Unit A
Van Nuys, CA 91405

Dear Mr. Currie:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor driven cycles. You believe that your product, an electric bicycle, qualifies for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. Sec.30113(b)(3)(B)(iii). This section authorizes exemptions that "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle." You plan to introduce your product in September 1998 if the exemption is approved.

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant an exemption on the basis of your letter. Section 30113 has been implemented by 49 CFR Part 555, and the procedures set out in this regulation must be followed both by you and the agency in considering requests for temporary exemptions. To apply for an exemption on the basis of Sec. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iii), you must submit an application containing the information specified in Sec. 555.5(b) and Sec. 555.6(c).

The agency does not grant blanket exemptions from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571). This means that your application must identify each standard, or the part of each standard, that applies to motor driven cycles, and from which you are requesting exemption. As indicated above, the application should contain sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that the exemption "would make the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle."

When we have received an application meeting the procedural requirements of Part 555, we prepare and publish in the Federal Register a notice inviting interested persons to comment on the application, which provides them a period of 30 days in which to do so. After evaluating the comments, we prepare and publish the Administrator's decision. The entire exemption process requires three to four months. This means that, under the best of circumstances, we could not give you an answer as early as September 1998.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.9/29/98

ID: 18561graco.a

Steve Gerhart, Product Compliance Engineer
Graco Children's Products Inc.
51 S. Pine St.
P.O. Box 100
Elverson, PA 19520

Dear Mr. Gerhart:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking several questions about S5.4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in our reply.

Section S5.4.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system whose mass is less than 4.4 kg, . . . each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when [dynamically] tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system . . .

You ask about several final rules that amended S5.4.3.2, resulting in the text quoted above. Your questions relate to whether the agency has data showing a safety problem with child restraints having masses greater than 4.4 kg, and how NHTSA would test such a restraint to the requirement of S5.4.3.2.

The following background would be helpful in answering your questions.

Background

Prior to the amendment of S5.4.3.2, that section only applied to belts that were (a) part of a child restraint system; (b) designed to restrain a child using the system; and (c) designed to attach the system to the vehicle. These belts were prohibited from imposing any load on the child, resulting from the mass of the system, during the standard's dynamic test.

In a March 16, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), NHTSA proposed to expand S5.4.3.2 to apply it also to each Type I (lap) and the lap portion of a Type II (lap/shoulder) vehicle belt that is used to attach the child restraint to the vehicle. These belts, which anchor the child restraint to the vehicle, function to absorb the forces of the crash into the frame of the vehicle. In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that, to protect the restrained child from the crash forces absorbed by these belts, the belts should be prohibited from transferring those crash forces to the child.

Several persons commenting on the proposal stated that the proposal would eliminate high-back belt-positioning booster seats from the marketplace. These boosters, which have backs supporting the head, neck and back of a child, are designed to restrain the child using a vehicle's Type II (lap/shoulder) belt. Some commenters stated that all belt-positioning boosters with seat backs will impose a load on the child through the lap belt portion (as well as the shoulder belt portion) of a Type II vehicle belt. The commenters were concerned that eliminating belt-positioning boosters was undesirable because there were no data showing a safety problem, and because the boosters were believed to perform well with Type II belts. Commenters also expressed concern that it was not practical to measure the load imposed on the test dummy. Some commenters suggested retaining the proposal but excluding any booster with a mass of less than 4 kilograms (kg) from the requirement. Four (4) kg was believed to be the maximum mass of belt-positioning boosters then on the market.

In a July 6, 1995 final rule, NHTSA responded to these commenters by stating that it did not intend to prohibit belt-positioning boosters with backs, nor did the agency believe there was a sufficient safety problem to warrant prohibiting current designs of such seats. Nonetheless, NHTSA further stated that it believed that limits on belt loading should be established to keep in check the potential for injury due to overloading a child occupant, such as from a "massive seat back" on a child restraint.

The agency adopted the approach suggested by some commenters of retaining the requirement, but excluding from it any restraint with a mass of less than 4 kg. The approach was consistent with requirements in Europe and with what the agency had believed to be the U.S. market at the time. NHTSA believed there was no data showing that a child restraint with a mass less than 4 kg imposes harmful loads on a child.

Gerry Baby Products petitioned for reconsideration of the amendment. Gerry said that NHTSA's belief that all the belt-positioning seats in the U.S. have a mass less than 4 kg was incorrect. Gerry stated that it sold seats with a mass of up to 4.4 kg, and had received no report of any problems or injuries associated with loads imposed on children by the booster seats.

In a June 18, 1996 response to the petition, NHTSA increased the 4 kg limit to 4.4 kg. NHTSA had been unaware that there were boosters with a mass greater than 4 kg (no commenter to the NPRM had indicated otherwise). The agency increased the limit based on Gerry's experience which had indicated that boosters with a mass up to 4.4 kg had not imposed unsafe loads on children.

The 1995 decision to limit the potential for overloading a child from elements such as a massive seat back on a belt-positioning seat departed from a July 21, 1994 rule that first established requirements for belt-positioning seats. In the 1994 rulemaking, the agency decided not to specify limits on seat back loading. The agency believed there was a lack of data indicating a safety problem and there was no procedure for measuring loads or for determining a threshold value for the loads imposed. In the 1995 rule, the agency explained that in 1994 it had not considered that a lap belt portion of a Type II belt system could transfer crash forces to a child from the back of a belt-positioning booster seat. The agency stated that after further consideration, in the context of S5.4.3.2, it had determined that a limit on the mass of the booster seat back was warranted to avoid potential injury to the child occupant.

With this background in mind, we turn to your questions, which we have restated below. Our answers follow each question.

Discussion

You first ask about NHTSA's 1995 decision to limit the mass of the seat back of belt-positioning seats after it had initially decided against doing so in 1994. You ask:

1. Was there any testing done after this [1994] rule was issued to confirm or deny [some commenters' beliefs that NHTSA ought to limit the weight of booster seats]? What was the outcome, or where could I find this information? Does NHTSA feel that higher booster seat weight would result in higher HIC's, G forces and excursions? Would this data be available also?

NHTSA did not conduct testing to confirm or deny the views that booster seats should be restricted in weight to limit overloading the child occupant. At the time of the rulemaking, and continuing to today, there are no test dummies that can reliably measure abdominal loading, nor is there an established injury criterion that correlates abdominal loads to the likelihood of injury. Also, there was, and is, no established test procedure in Standard 213 that measures seat back loads on the child dummy and that correlates those to injury. Yet, it was believed that seat back loads could, at some level, injure a child in a crash, when loads were excessive. In view of the confines at the time of the rulemaking on developing a test that would distinguish between excessive and acceptable loads on the child occupant, NHTSA adopted an alternative approach that limits loading by way of limiting the mass of the booster seat. The agency had insufficient data on which to determine whether we agreed or disagreed with the belief expressed by a commenter that increasing booster seat weights results in higher HIC's, G forces or excursions.

Your second question asks about the agency's 1995 decision to limit the potential for injury due to overloading the child from "a massive child seat back." You ask:

2. What does the agency see as massive? Is there any data or history on seats viewed as massive that injured a child due to back loading? If so, how much did the seat weigh? If there are no data, would there be an acceptable method to test the loads imposed on the back of the child, and how would threshold values be determined?

NHTSA has not identified a value above which injury could result from loading a child occupant and below which injury is not likely to occur. Yet, child restraints with a mass of less than 4.4 kg are viewed as not likely to injure, based on the field experience of Gerry Baby Products with its 4.4 kg booster seat.

We do not know of actual injuries caused by seat back loading. However, in 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NHTSA conducted a rulemaking relating to excessive seat back loads in the aircraft environment (61 FR 28423, June 4, 1996)(copy enclosed). FAA sought to prohibit the use of backless boosters seats on aircraft because it believed the seats were incompatible with aircraft seats that have a "breakover" seat back. (A breakover feature allows the seat back to rotate forward easily when impacted by an occupant from behind.) FAA determined that a child dummy restrained in a backless booster seat experienced an increase in abdominal loading when an adult dummy in the seat rearward of the child impacted the seat back. The increase in loading was unacceptable to FAA, although it was recognized that there are no accepted criteria to assess the relationship between differences in measured levels of abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal injury, and the type and severity of such injury. FAA's methodology for the research program is discussed in NHTSA's 1996 final rule, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

3. How is a restraint tested if it is over 4.4 kg? How are loads measured in S6.1 if the restraint is over 4.4 kg?

A restraint that is over 4.4 kg is evaluated to ascertain compliance with the requirements of S5.4.3.2 in accordance with NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for that section, which you ask about in your fourth question. The evaluation is based on a visual inspection. NHTSA believes that all belt-positioning booster seats with a back will load the child through the lap belt portion of a Type II belt. Thus, a belt-positioning seat, unless excepted because it is less than 4.4 kg, generally will not meet S5.4.3.2. In essence, that section functions to limit the mass of belt-positioning boosters with backs.

4. In the Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 213, the section 5.4.3.2 for Direct Restraint Belts (page 104) lists 3 yes/no questions as pass/fail criteria, with 3 yes answers failing the restraint. The questions are: (1) Belt/dummy contact for restraint; (2) Rigid structure behind dummy; and (3) Belt/child restraint slip possible. What does the third criterion mean? How does the 4.4 kg requirement within FMVSS 213 relate to this testing procedure?

The three criteria indicate the factors which NHTSA evaluates to determine whether a child restraint meets S5.4.3.2. A restraint fails if all three criteria are answered "yes." If only two of the questions result in a "yes," then we determine there is no loading of the child dummy. Under (1), to determine whether S5.4.3.2 applies, the agency checks to see if the belt in question contacts the dummy. Under (2), the agency checks to see if there is rigid structure between the dummy and the back of the standard seat assembly because that structure could impose excessive loads on the child. Under (3), NHTSA checks to see if the child restraint can move ("slip") relative to the belt system. A child restraint that moves forward against a relatively stationary belt can load the child occupant.

I hope this information is helpful. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/22/99

ID: 18569.ztv

M. J. Shaw
379 E. Main St.
Peru, IN 46970-2522

Dear Mr. or Ms. Shaw:

This is in reply to your postcard of August 4, 1998, to Philip Recht, the Deputy Administrator of this agency, about the recent final rule on low-speed vehicles.

Your first question is whether "the Canadian Bombardier neighborhood vehicle (electric mini-car) [is] now street legal in the USA." Your second question is whether "all states, including [Indiana, are] registering the NV for legal operation."

The Federal government has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as it did recently with Standard No. 500 Low-Speed Vehicles. Thus, if a motor vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" is manufactured and certified by its manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 500, it is legal to import and sell that vehicle in the United States. Thus, Bombardier may import its Neighborhood Vehicle (NV) from Canada by certifying compliance with Standard No. 500. We do not know, however, whether Bombardier has begun to do so. Although the sale of a certified low-speed vehicle would not violate Federal law, the requirements for registration of vehicles and conditions of their use on the public roads are matters under the authority of the states. This means that a vehicle could be "street legal," to use your term, for Federal purposes but not under state law.

This brings us to your second question. We have no information whether states are or are not registering NVs or other types of low-speed vehicles. Some states, at this point, may be reviewing Standard No. 500 to determine how it affects the laws currently existing in that state. We do not know the views of Indiana on this issue. However, if you wish to ask the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles for its opinion, you should identify the vehicle as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose maximum speed is more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour.

If you have any further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:500
d.9/29/98