ID: 22843

Mr. Matz Larsson
Sales Manager
Broderna Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
SE-334 21 Anderstorp
Sweden





Dear Mr. Larsson:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 2001, asking whether the buckle release on your child restraint system meets the area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." The answer is yes.

S5.4.3.5(c) of Standard No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209," which reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.

Since your buckle requires a sliding action to activate the buckle release, we consider your buckle release to be designed for slide application rather than pushbutton or lever application. Thus, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), a buckle having other design for release must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release. You claim that your buckle release meets this requirement. We agree. All of our staff working on this response were able to place two fingers into your slide action release button to actuate release. Thus, we have determined that your buckle release meets the requirement of S4.3(d)(2).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#209
d.4/10/01

ID: nht90-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

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

TITLE: ACTION: PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: On April 4, 1990, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) submitted a request for approval of a modification to the existing antitheft device for the exempted MY 1990 Porsche 911 and 928 carlines.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes submitted by Porsche, and finds that the system activation process as described by Porsche would not undermine the device and that it would qualify for de minimis treatment. Porsche has changed the antitheft system by allowing it to additionally monitor the glove box for opening. This means that if the glove box is opened while the system is armed, the alarm will be activated. Previously, the antitheft system would only monitor the vehicle's doors, hood, hatc, igni tion switch, and removal of its radio.

The system's alarm control unit will now be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units to save space and to simplify the vehicle's electrical system. Porsche's antitheft system will also now have the capability to accept other inputs such as motion sensors, and improved diagnostic capability to enhance serviceability.

The new system will continue to be armed by locking either the driver or passenger door with the ignition key. The same points of entry will continue to be monitored by the system and the disabling and alarm features will remain the same. The new syste m will also continue to be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by Porsche and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter gra nting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to Porsche, pursuant to Part 543.9(j).

Attachment Letter from Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

ID: nht88-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/88

FROM: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 TO GEORGE ZIOLO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108;

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I assist graymarket automobile importers in conforming their vehicles.

Some foreign models come equipped with four headlamps two of which are 7" diameter and two 5 3/4" diameter.

My clients modify them by installing two Type 2D1 (7" dia) high & low beam units outboards, and two Type 1C1 (5 3/4" dia) high beam units inboards.

OVSC (NEF-32) rejects such installations because they are "nonconforming" "headlighting systems". It is my opinion that such rejection is without basis.

As I understand it, the FMVSS are "minimum standards". S4.1.1 confirms this by requiring that "...each vehicle...be equipped with at least the number of lamps...specified in Tables I and III,...."

My clients' installation of two Type 2D1 lamps satisfies the minimum requirement specified in Table III.

My clients' installation of two Type IC1 lamps in addition to the two Type 2D1 lamps is not counter to a "headlighting system" as I can find in the standard. In addition, S4.4 appears to permit such combination.

While it may have been necessary to ensure symmetry in headlighting systems combinations in motorcycles by way of S4.1.1.34, where Table III calls for only one lamp, such clarification relative to vehicles other than motorcycles is obviously not needed s ince symmetry in such will be natural.

I therefore kindly request that you determine whether or not FMVSS 108 allows lamp combinations as outlined above and advise me at your earliest convenience. The cited lamp combinations are desired by my clients for reasons of appearance. Also, modificat ion of such vehicles to delete the 2D1 (7") lamp in lieu of a 2C1 (5 3/4") lamp is costly, including replacement of the entire front grille.

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 52, NO 208 10/28/87 NHTSA 49 CFR PART 571 (DOCKERT 87-15 NOTICE 1) FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: 1124

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
President
Sierra Products, Inc.
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses.

You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a `Petition for Change of FMVSS #108 Request'".

Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more.

Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inches. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation.

We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for

turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On September 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/20/95

ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel

TO: Mark Warlick -- Four Winds International Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/8/95 LETTER FROM MARK WARLICK TO ED GLANCY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a mi nimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined are a makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is s et forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in m otion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designat ed seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whethe r an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-4.14

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to White Motor Corporation's April 26, 1976, question whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, require minimum brake chamber air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing in brake systems. Section S5.3.3 specifies in part:

. . . With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when measured from the first movement of the service brake control, reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 seconds. . . .

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your request for interpretation of these sections in view of White's intent to use a lower air pressure than was commonly used in the past, the agency will utilize the stated 60-psi value or a value that is 70 percent of the maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower. In the case of release, the stated 95-psi value or the value that represents maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower, will be used. For purposes of this determination, the maximum air pressure in the brake chamber is that obtainable with full brake application when the pressure in the service reservoir is at 100 psi. Use of the maximum air pressure application timing would be unreasonable because of the decreased rate of air pressure build-up that occurs as the brake chambers reach maximum pressure.

The agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation.

ID: nht68-1.4

DATE: 01/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, and your letter of January 9, 1968, you requested:

". . . . an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall.

Sincerely,

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

January 9, 1968

Roger H. Compton, Director Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Compton:

Re: Replies to 1) Our December 5, 1967, Letter Addressed to Mr. L. K. Bridwell

2) Confirmation of Telephone Call (December 15, 1967) Placing Labeling on One Side of Tire by Stencils Molded into the Tire in Lieu of labels

My letter of December 5, 1967, last paragraph, stated as follows:

"We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

On December 15, 1967, our Mr. John A. Diehl called Mr. Schwentker and received a verbal reply by telephone from you that The Armstrong Rubber, Company could proceed without labels if the required information of S4.3 MVSS Standard 109 was molded on one sidewall of the tire in lieu of labels.

We appreciate your position and understand that your staff is not complete. However, we would like to receive a reply in writing or by means of a notice in the Federal Register that the course which you approved and which we are following can be used by all tire manufacturers.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly Secretary

ID: 86-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/86

FROM: ERIKA R. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROGER WILLIAMS -- PRESIDENT TECHNICAL HALLMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM ROGER WILLIAMS TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable to the "new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles".

The specific legal name for this light is "center high-mounted stop lamp". It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since then. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady-burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1987 Cadil ac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.

Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.18 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to

manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE