ID: 11647MLV

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 of December 19, 1995, requesting information concerning the readiness indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding.

S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states:

An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.

You ask whether this requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You state that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install:

- no readiness indicator, or - a separate readiness indicator from that required by Standard No. 208, or - a readiness indicator combined with that required by Standard No. 208.

As explained below, for both types of inflatable restraints, we agree with the first two of these statements, but not necessarily with the third.

Voluntarily-Installed Inflatable Restraints

A crash-deployed occupant protection system installed in addition to required safety systems would not be required to

comply with the provisions of the safety standards. Thus, a readiness indicator would not be required. However, in the interest of safety, we would urge you to consider voluntarily providing a readiness indicator for the system.

As explained below, if you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator, and decide to combine it with the required readiness indicator, the information provided by the former must not confuse or obscure the information provided by the latter about the required air bag. The indicator must distinguish between the different air bag systems, such as by having dissimilar signals for the different systems.

While systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with the standards, they must not make inoperative the compliance of the required systems (49 U.S.C. '30122). We urge you to make sure that by combining a voluntarily-installed readiness indicator with the required indicator, you do not prevent the latter from complying with Standard No. 208. If the messages of the two indicators were not distinguishable, a driver would not know if the illuminated telltale showed a problem with the occupant protection system installed to comply with Standard No. 208, or a problem with another system being monitored.

NHTSA addressed a related issue in a rulemaking that allowed manufacturers to install a manual cut-off device for a passenger-side air bag in certain situations (60 FR 27233; May 23, 1995). The agency stated there that the readiness indicator must monitor only the driver's air bag when the passenger-side air bag was deactivated. In other words, the indicator must not be affected by the deactivated state of the passenger-side air bag.

Systems Installed for a Standard Other than Standard 208

The requirement for a readiness indicator (S4.5.2) applies only to systems that are installed to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, and not to systems installed to comply with another standard. Air bag systems installed pursuant to Standard No. 208 are generally installed to meet the frontal protection requirements of that standard. While a readiness indicator is not required for systems installed for other purposes, we would urge the manufacturer to provide a means of monitoring the readiness of the system, consistent with the cautions above.

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:208#214 d:4/25/96

ID: 11654DRN

Mr. John A. Silva
Partner
EMECO
P. O. Box 766
Grover Beach, CA 93483

Dear Mr. Silva:

This responds to your letter advising us that your company is developing a product in the "automotive safety field," and asking for guidance about how this agency=s requirements may affect your product.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of equipment. Enclosed is an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment,@ describing NHTSA=s regulations for motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Under the agency=s governing statute, NHTSA does not certify or approve products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" its products to all applicable safety standards.

You did not specify in your letter what type of automotive product you plan to manufacture, and thus our guidance on our standards is limited. Please write to us again when you can provide more details about your product. If you are concerned about maintaining confidentiality about business information concerning your product, this agency has procedures at 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information, under which NHTSA will consider claims that information you submit to us is confidential business information as described in the Freedom of Information Act.

You also state that your product may require patent protection. For guidance on patent matters, I would suggest that you consult

an attorney with expertise in patent law, who can provide specific guidance about your product.

If you have questions about NHTSA=s requirements or any other matter, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:4/3/96

ID: 11655DRN

Mr. Roger Wilk
President
Columbia Packing Corporation
85 Revere Dr. Suite H
Northbrook, IL 60062

Dear Mr. Wilk:

This responds to your letter asking for information on regulations Apertaining to the horn used as a warning device on an automobile.@

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require a horn on motor vehicles. Our safety standard for motor vehicle controls and displays (Safety Standard No. 101, 49 CFR '571.101) specifies requirements for a horn if one is provided. The horn must be operable by the driver, and must be identified as specified in the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 101 for your information.

Our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For further information about FHWA requirements, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

In addition, some States regulate the use of horns. You have provided an excerpt (Section 12-401 "Horns and other Warning Devices") from the Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. The Code is not a Federal statute, but is available for enactment by the States. You may be able to determine whether Illinois or any other State has enacted Section 12-401 by contacting:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 888 16th St., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Tel.: (202) 898-0145; FAX (202) 898-0148

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571#101 d:4/5/96

ID: 11656-1PJA

Mr. Claude Sauvageau, P.Eng.
74, boul. de la Seigneurie est
Suite 4
Blainville (QuJbec) J7C 4N1

Dear Mr. Sauvageau:

This responds to your letter asking about emergency exit labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask which of two labels your client, an urban bus manufacturer, should use on their emergency exit windows.

As required by S5.3.1 of Standard No. 217, two motions are necessary to open the exits of your client=s buses. The first is to pull down on a red latch at the top center of the window. The second is to push to the left a handle at the bottom right of the window. Your first label depicts only the action of pulling down the red latch. Your second label shows the sequence of first pulling down the red latch and then pushing the handle to the left.

You are correct in your assumption that only the second emergency exit label is permitted. The language in S5.5.1 requires the label to have A. . . the designation >Emergency exit= followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit . . .@ (emphasis added). The word Aeach@ explains that all necessary motions have to be described. The words Aand open@ explicitly include the motion to open the window. The first label only tells how to unlatch the window, not how to open it. The second label tells how to unlatch and open the window.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:217 d:4/29/96

ID: 11658DRN

Mr. Louis Kleinstiver
Technical Services Director
National Truck Equipment Association
37400 Hills Tech Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3414

Dear Mr. Kleinstiver:

You have asked me to explain the effect of differing State and Federal definitions of school buses on the obligations of vehicle dealers.

The Federal definition of "school bus" affects the scope of the Federal requirements only, while the definitions of the various States affect the scope of State school bus requirements only. The Federal definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The definitions of the various States determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses.

Under Federal law, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more, including the driver. A bus is a "school bus" if it is to be used to transport children to and from school or school-related events.

If a State chooses to define "school bus" to include only buses with a capacity of 16 persons or more, that definition would not affect the obligations of dealers in selling or leasing 11 to 15-person buses under Federal law. If a dealer sold or leased a new bus of this size for school transportation, the dealer would nevertheless have to ensure that the bus was certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. A dealer selling or leasing a new bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would be subject to a civil penalty.

As you requested, I am enclosing two question-and-answer sheets about school bus issues, one of interest to motor vehicle dealers, and another of general interest. I am also enclosing copies of two interpretation letters. The first letter, dated December 29, 1977, is addressed to the Kentucky Department of Education, and concerns the applicability of our school bus standards to vans. The second letter, dated November 25, 1985 to Thomas Built Buses, explains that NHTSA considers a Head Start facility as a preprimary Aschool@ for the purpose of NHTSA's school bus standards.

In addition, some vehicle manufacturers have written guidelines to assist their dealers to determine whether vehicles are being sold for use by schools and school districts. Dealers should contact their manufacturers for any such information.

If you have any questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571.3 d:4/17/96

ID: 11660ZTV

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager, Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Matsui:

We have received your letter of March 13, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the word "replaceable" with respect to the replaceable light sources permitted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for use in motor vehicle headlamps. This information will assist you in the development of HID headlamps.

You ask whether "replaceable" as used in paragraph S7.7 means that access should be provided for convenient replacement without the use of special tools, which is a specific requirement of Standard No. 108 for light sources for the center highmounted stop lamp. The answer is no; there is no requirement that replaceable light sources be replaceable without the use of special tools.

We recognize that HID light sources may be designed for the life of the vehicle on which they are installed, and, optimally, would require replacement only in the event of front end damage. However, NHTSA believes it is in the interest of safety that light sources that are not designed for such longevity should be replaceable in a simple manner. When the agency amended Standard No. 108 to permit replaceable light sources (48 FR 24690, June 2, 1983), the replaceable light sources that were initially produced had bayonet mountings, which provided positive one-way insertion of the bulb into the reflector assembly. This allowed owner-replacement of the light source, a safety benefit used in justification of the final rule: "The easy replacement of the bulb may result in faster replacement of burned out headlamps." Thirteen years later, headlighting systems have become more complicated in a way that the agency did not foresee then, but the principle of simplicity of replacement of the light source remains.

If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/96

ID: 11663.DRN

Bruce A. Zagar, Esq.
Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, Paulus
Jennings & Comstock, P.C.
1011 Commercial Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97308-0749

Dear Mr. Zagar:

This responds to your letter asking whether a public school district may use a "currently-owned passenger van" which seats more than 10 persons to transport students for school activities.

The law administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) authorizes the agency to regulate the safety of new motor vehicles. The law has recently been recodified as Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, but has not been substantively changed. Under 49 U.S.C. '30125, a Aschool bus@ is any vehicle which is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be significantly used to transport students to and from school or related events. Thus, a person selling a vehicle meeting that definition must certify that it meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our standards do not apply to vehicles after their sale to the first retail purchaser. If the purchaser of a 12-15 passenger van that is not certified to the school bus standards decides to use the van to transport students, neither our statute nor our standards would prevent such a use.

However, the states have authority to regulate motor vehicle use within their boundaries. Thus, although NHTSA cannot require the use of school buses to transport students, the State of Oregon may have exercised such authority. Your question about the permissibility of using conventional vans as school vehicles should be addressed to your state officials.

I hope this information is helpful. 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Al Shannon Oregon Director of Pupil Transportation Department of Education 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310-0203 ref:571 d:5/17/96 ref:571.3

ID: 11664ANGLE

Mr. Stephen T. Long
Xportation Safety Concepts Inc. (XSCI)
4143 Sinton Road
Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Dear Mr. Long:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ That provision of the standard sets limits on the back support angle provided by a rear-facing child seat.

According to your letter, your company, XSCI, is developing a rear-facing infant seat that can be used in the front seat of vehicles equipped with passenger side air bags. You state, AWe have consistently demonstrated [Head Injury Criterion] HIC values of less than 400 in standard sled tests (30+ mph). We believe we can lower these HIC values even more if we change the angle of the cradle back support that we currently are using.@ You ask whether your understanding is correct that Athe cradle [depicted in a sketch you enclosed] can be at any angle from 0 (upright) to 70 degrees (almost horizontal) and still be within FMVSS 213 guidelines.@ Our answer is yes, your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct.

S5.1.4, Back Support Angle, states:

When a rear-facing child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1 [Standard 213's dynamic test], the angle between the system=s back support surface for the child and the vertical shall not exceed 70 degrees.

This means that the child restraint system=s back support surface and the vertical must not exceed 70 degrees at any time during the dynamic test of Standard 213. Your sketch indicates that you correctly understand S5.1.4's reference to the angle of A70 degrees@ formed by the back support surface and the vertical.

While your understanding of S5.1.4 is correct, a few aspects of your letter should be clarified. The first aspect was discussed with you in a March 18, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff. As discussed in that call, S5.1.1(b) of Standard 213 requires that a child restraint that is adjustable to different positions must remain in the same adjustment position during the dynamic test that it was in immediately before the test. (There is an exception to the requirement (S5.1.1(b)(2)), but it would not apply to a restraint such as yours.) While it appears from your sketch that the infant seat may fail to remain in the same adjustment position in the test, you informed Ms. Fujita that the seat back angle is Afixed@ on your system, and thus would not change adjustment position as depicted.

Second, when you asked about S5.1.4, you referred to the specifications of FMVSS 213 as Aguidelines.@ We emphasize that the provisions set forth in S5 of the standard are not guidelines, but are requirements that apply to all new child restraint systems. Each manufacturer of a child restraint system must certify the compliance of its product to Standard 213's requirements.

For your information, Standard 213 was amended in July 1995 to incorporate additional test dummies for use in compliance tests, along with other changes to the standard as well. Under the amendment, child restraints recommended for children with a mass of up to 10 kilograms (approximately 22 pounds) may be tested by NHTSA using test dummies representing both a newborn and a nine-month-old child. I have enclosed a copy of this July 6, 1995 rule (60 FR 35126) for your convenience.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law (Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301) for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Under Federal law, each manufacturer must self-certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The NHTSA does not approve or endorse any products.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:4/30/96

ID: 11673ZTV

Mr. James Baker
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 14, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have assumed that vehicles "that bore a federal certification statement had SAE/Dot approved lighting", and believe that you are "finding out that may not be true." Specifically, you asked whether the agency "would accept lighting that does not bear the SAE/Dot lens markings. Eg. SAE STL-79, SAE DP-81."

The answer is yes, except for original and replacement headlamps covered by paragraph S7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment ). The lenses of these headlamps must be marked DOT as a certification of compliance (paragraph S7.2(a)). These are headlamps manufactured for use on vehicles other than motorcycles.

The SAE codes you quote appear to relate to motorcycle lighting equipment other than headlamps. Thus, it may be that this type of motor vehicle is of some concern to you. Standard No. 108 contains alternative specifications for motorcycle headlighting systems. If the motorcycle has a headlamp system conforming to SAE J584 April 1964, no lens marking is required. However, if the motorcycle is equipped with one half of a type of headlighting system specified in S7, as it is permitted to do pursuant to paragraph S5.1.1.23 of Standard No. 108, the marking requirements of S7.2 continue to apply.

No DOT marking is required for the lens of any other original or replacement lamp. If a manufacturer wishes to certify compliance of a replacement lamp, paragraph S5.8.10 of Standard No. 108 permits it do so by putting a DOT symbol on the lens (otherwise the manufacturer is expected to certify by a label attached to the lamp, or a statement on the container in which it is

shipped). We have never required that lenses be marked with SAE code functions, and note that even the SAE materials that cover individual types of lighting equipment do not contain a specification that lighting devices be marked in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J759 Lighting Identification Code though many manufacturers do so.

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:4/4/96

ID: 11674MLV

Mr. Scott Junk
Junk Design
873 Deep Creek
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Dear Mr. Junk:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 1996, concerning a new product called "Head Rest Travelers." Your letter explained that the product "is a lycra slipcover that fits over the existing headrest in a car to change the headrest into a stuffed character." You asked if there were any regulations that apply to this product. In particular, you expressed concern that, because the product extends three to six inches from the existing headrest it could reduce visibility.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized under 49 CFR Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 CFR Section 30112 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Federal law establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your product may be affected by five safety standards: Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors," Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," Standard No. 202, "Head Restraints," Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials."

These five standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If your product were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including these five, with the product installed. However, based on the information you provided, it appears that your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. '30122. The provision provides:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not, however, apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. The agency, however, recommends that owners not make modifications to their vehicles which would degrade the safety performance of the vehicle, such as installing a product that degraded the field of view of a vehicle's mirror system.

Your letter also asks about "safety restrictions." In addition to the foregoing, your product would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products which have safety defects. Therefore, if your product proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

We also recommend that you check state regulations. Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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:202 d:4/23/96