ID: 7114

Mr. John W. Phillips
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:202 d:5/5/92

ID: 7117

Mr. George F. Reuss
Reuss Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 22
Waltz's Mills
Madison, PA 15663

Dear Mr. Reuss:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: VSA d:4/29/92

ID: 7135

Mr. Michael J. Sens
Researcher
S.E.A., Inc.
7349 Worthington-Galena Road
Columbus, OH 43085

Dear Mr. Sens:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . [C]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#567#206 d:4/17/92

ID: 7145

Mr. Tm Kozy
Marketing Director
InfiniMed
2105 S. Hardy Dr., Ste. 5
Tempe, AZ 85282-1990

Dear Mr. Kozy:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/5/92

ID: 7169-3

Mr. Charles Chun
General Manager
Kia Motors Corporation
Los Angeles Office
1 Technology Drive, Building H
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Chun:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214#571#567 d:5/22/92

ID: 7170

Mr. Tom Mario
Vice President Sales
Sealco Air Controls, Inc.
215 East Watkins Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dear Mr. Mario:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

ref:121 d:5/21/92

ID: 7171

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

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . ." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: 7174

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:5/14/92

ID: 7175

Mr. Raymond B. Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
5508 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR 553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:111 d:5/14/92

ID: 7196

Mr. Gonshiro Miyoshi
Manager, Design Administration Dept.
Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Miyoshi:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked "Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?"

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which "the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . ." In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided "by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically)," and the upper beam is provided "by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically)."

Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the "upper" one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/8/92