ID: nht95-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lori A. Hawker

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/29/94 letter from Lori A. Hawker to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 10536)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carr ier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. Yo u believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor veh icle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be resp onsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those fla mmability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the strap s in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an ob vious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/8/94 letter from Jane L. Dawson to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat c omplies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test thei r products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its produ cts to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than th e seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicl e manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analys is, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b) (2) (A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedur e allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplica te the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a reques t for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attac hment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with informati on on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretations of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDAL K. BUSICK (A43; STD. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of several aspects of FMVSS 210 location requirements

1. Section 4.3 states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

In a Federal Register notice of December 5, 1991, the agency stated that: "Since a March 14, 1988 interpretation letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber of Mercedes-Benz, the agency has considered a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position equipped with an SIR system to be exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210 . . . . the agency is amending S4.3 to clarify, consistent with agency interpretation this section, that the anchorages for all seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from the location requirements."

Does this mean that if a vehicle with 2 front seating positions is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and this restraint system meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208, that the seat belt assemblies are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210?

2. Could you please clarify what is meant, in sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2, by an installation in which the "belt bears upon" or "does not bear upon" the seat frame? In addition to an explanation, a few examples would be useful.

3. As regards a rear non-adjustable seat, would the anchorage system set forth in the attached photographs and diagram comply with the location requirements of S4.3.1.1(a)? We believe that it would because the relevant angle is from the seating referen ce point to the point where the end of the belt fastens to the bracket (labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing").

On April 30, 1990, NHTSA amended section 4.3.1.1(a) to read: "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt WITH THE HARDWARE ATTACHING IT TO THE ANCHORAGE shall . . . ." (Em phasis added.) By notice dated December 5, 1991, the agency deleted the phrase" hardware attaching it to the anchorage", because in that same notice, NHTSA amended the definition of "anchorage" to include "attachment hardware". The agency specifically stated that t he above phrase was therefore superfluous. This deletion, however, should not have changed anything substantively, and because the attached design would comply with the section as worded on April 30, 1990, we believe that the design complies with sectio n 4.3.1.1(a) as it reads today.

We look forward to your reply. Kindly direct your response or any questions to our Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203). Thank you.

ID: nht95-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/22/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RANDAL BUSICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is in response to the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated January 5, 1995 regarding our previous request for an interpretation of S7.1.2 of FMVSS 208.

In the final paragraph of his letter, Mr. Recht indicated that the agency's technical staff raised concerns about the "SLIDER BAR" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt is attached (see attached diagram, "Attachment # 1"). Mr. Recht further st ated that the staff is concerned that the bar allows the seat belt webbing to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. Mr. Recht concluded by saying that this design may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 210.

Enclosed for your review are more detailed photographs and diagrams of the slider bar ("Attachment # 2"). Please note that the purpose of the slider bar is to allow ingress and egress to and from the rear seats of a 2-door vehicle. This system is very s imilar to the system used in the 3 series BMW coupe. The seat belt assembly (with slider bar) contemplated herein will be crash tested with an air bag under the requirements of FMVSS 208.

The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled). This point is within the angle required by FMVSS 210 S4.3.1.1(b), and we therefore believe that the anchorage location requirements of Standard 210 are met.

In sum, once the crash test requirements and injury criteria of FMVSS 208 are met, together with applicable requirements of FMVSS 209 and 210, we do not see how the system "may prevent" the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of FMVSS 208 or the anchorage from meeting the location requirements of FMVSS 210.

Kindly respond to the Vehicle Science Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden, CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203) so that we can discuss this further and swiftly resolve the issues presented herein.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Attachments: (Drawings and Photos omitted)

ID: nht95-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Motorcycle Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting an interpretation from NHTSA regarding the applicability to motorcycles of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator Lamp requirements within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84.

When reviewing Table III of FMVSS 108 (Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment) and its applicability to motorcycle turn signal lamps, we are referred to SAE J588, November 1984. SAE J588 not only specifies turn signal lamp requirements but also speci fies other related requirements such as the need for a turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if the turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 indicates the illuminated turn signal pilot indicator lamp, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow colored light.

All Kawasaki motorcycles designed for use on public roads and sold in the United States are equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of FMVSS 108. In addition, all Kawasaki motorcycles having turn signal lamps are equipped with an illumi nated pilot indicator lamp (yellow colored).

Table III within FMVSS 123; Motorcycle Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification. However, FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for the turn signal pilot indicator lamp.

In future model years, Kawasaki would like to change the current yellow colored light that illuminates our motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps to a green colored light. However, when reviewing SAE J588 NOV84 and FMVSS 123, we cannot determine w ith confidence if it would be allowed.

When reviewing the language within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84, it seems evident this section was written with passenger cars in mind and not motorcycles. "5.4.3.3 - If the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for exam ple on the front fenders, they should emit a yellow colored light and have a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 mm." It is our belief the color and area requirements are specified within this section to insure visibility by the driver because the l ocation of the indicator lamp would be a greater distance away from the drivers eye than a indicator lamp located inside the vehicle on the dash panel.

FMVSS 123 does not need to address distance from the drivers eye, color, or size of the turn signal pilot indicator lamp because the location of the indicator lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the drivers eye.

Motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are, in most cases, located within the main instrument panel of the motorcycle with other instrumentation such as speedometer, tachometer, oil pressure gage or warning light, fuel level gage, and transmission neutral indicator. The main instrument panel on motorcycles is usually located between the handlebars and the headlamp. In some cases, motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator lamps are located away from the main instrument panel on the fuel tank, or wit hin a separate panel between the motorcycles fuel tank and handlebars. When considering these locations and their distance from the drivers eye, we believe any pilot lamp light color would be acceptable.

When reviewing current FMVSS requirements (FMVSS 108 / FMVSS 123), we believe we are not limited to using only a yellow color for the lamp of our turn signal pilot indicators because FMVSS 123 does not specify color requirements for turn signal indicator lamps. However, as indicated above, we are not entirely confident our interpretation of the requirements is correct because of the yellow color requirement specified within Section 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84. Therefore, we are requesting your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our request.

If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext 2456.

ID: nht95-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: PAUL D. KELLY, ALBERTSON, WARD & McCAFFREY

TO: Philip Recht, Esquire -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/1/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL D. KELLY (A43; VSA 108(a)(2); Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Please be advised that this office represents Performance Van Shop, Inc., a New Jersey corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens. I write to you at the instruction of Ms. Pat Breslin of NHTSA.

Recently my client has been asked to modify a vehicle for a client named Terri Battisti who is approximately 35 years of age and suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed. She has no use of her lower torso and very l imited upper body mobility. She is confined to a power wheelchair from which she drives. This proposed van would be her third over the past 10-15 years.

My client has no knowledge of Ms. Battisti's past driving record concerning any particular difficulties or accidents or other driver violations. My client is currently confronted with a problem which I would ask that you please address if at all poss ible. Ms. Batissti's ability to turn the steering wheel and to see the gauges in the vehicle has, in the past been accommodated by having the steering box on a stock vehicle removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From that point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. This was a common adjustment made for disabled citizens in my client's industry and had pro ved to be very safe and efficient.

My client is lead to believe that as of 1992 the new federal safety laws regarding light truck and van driver's side airbags became effective and therein lies the problem. In the case with Ms. Batissti, if my client does not change the steering wheel Ms. Batissti will never be able to drive the van. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges when it is in the driving position. My client has proposed a zero effort steeri ng box on this van and have the steering column extended to position her in the driving position. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel. My client has the ability and the means to change to the steering wheel, but to do so would mean sacrificing t he airbag apparatus.

My client is anxious to be able to accommodate this nice lady so that she can continue to drive, but they are naturally concerned and want to be in compliance with any applicable regulations that might be issued through, among others, your office. If there is some provision for accommodating this special needs situation or some sort of a waiver provision. I would ask that you please let me know. The use of the vehicle in this altered condition would be with the full consent and understanding by Ms . Batissti that the safety device designed for her protection, i.e., the airbag, would be removed.

I ask for your guidance in providing assistance to this disabled citizen.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht95-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl L. Hartley, Jr. -- Ryan Freight Services, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/23/94 letter from Earl L. Hartley, Jr. to John Womack (OCC 10290)

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you need to provide country of origin information to the auto manufacturers you sell to, and would li ke confirmation that you are properly interpreting the regulations. We understand that you are an "outside supplier," i.e., your company is not owned by an auto manufacturer. (Requirements differ for outside suppliers and allied suppliers.) Your questi ons, and our responses, are set forth below.

Question 1. 583.6(c) We interpret this to mean that if the U.S./Canada value added is 70% or more we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be 100%. If the U.S./Canada value added is less than 70% we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be -0-% Is this correct?

Response. You are partially correct. It is true that, under 583.6(c), equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 per cent is added in the U.S./Canada. However, the specific information which outside suppliers must provide to auto manufacturers is set forth in 583.10. (Outside suppliers of engines and transmissions must also provide the information specified in 583.12 . I will assume for the balance of this letter that you are not a supplier of engines or transmissions.) Rather than requiring outside suppliers to report the 100 percent or 0 percent figure, section 583.10 instead specifies that outside suppliers are t o provide a statement that the equipment has, or does not have, at least 70 percent of its value added in the United States and Canada.

Question 2. 583.7(a), (e), (f) If the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value is -0-% then we should report the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% each. Is this correct?

Response. No. This question suggests a misunderstanding of the differing requirements for auto manufacturers and suppliers. Auto manufacturers are required to calculate, on a carline basis, "U.S./Canadian parts content" and "Major sources of foreig n parts content." Suppliers are required to provide specified information about the equipment they supply to enable the auto manufacturers to make these calculations. As indicated above, the information that outside suppliers must provide is set forth i n 583.10. Suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 3. 583.7(c)(1) This requirement is completely independent from the determination of the percentage of the value determination. Therefore it is possible for a part to be of U.S.A. origin and have -0-% U.S./Canadian percentage of value. Are we correct in this assumption?

Response. The answer is yes. It is true that a part could be of U.S./Canada origin under 583.7(c)(1), for purposes of determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment, even though it has less than 70 percent U.S./Canadian conte nt and is hence considered to have 0 percent U.S./Canadian content under 583.6. This reflects the different purposes of 583.6 and 583.7. Section 583.6 sets forth the procedure for determining the U.S./Canadian content of carlines. Under the American Au tomobile Labeling Act, equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 percent is added in the U.S./Canada. Section 583.7 spe cifies the procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment. The only effect of a determination under 583.7(c)(1) that a part is of U.S./Canadian origin is that it will not be considered to have been contributed by a foreign source.

Question 4a. 583.10(a)-(c) From these parts we assume the following requirements:

Our certificate must show:

1. The name and address of the supplier, 2. The part number and description of the part or assembly, 3. The selling price to our customer, 4. Whether the part has or does not have 70% of its value from the United States/Canada as determined under 583.6(c), 5. If the United States/Canada percentage is less than 70% the country of origin determined under 583.7 (c), 6. For equipment that may be used in an engine or transmission, the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.8(c), 7. A certification for the information, pursuant to 583.13 and the date of the certification, and, 8. One certificate can cover multiple parts and assemblies.

Response. Your eight stated understandings are correct. With respect to the second, I note that while 583.10 (a) does not specifically mention "part number," we assume that would be the customary way of identifying unique equipment.

Question 4b. If the United States/Canada percentage of the value added is -0- percent, should we show the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% on our certificate? This information does not seem to be required by 583.10(a).

Response. As discussed in our answer to Question 2, suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 5. 583.13 This section requires us to certify the information provided on our certificate to be in accordance with DOT regulations. Please provide us with a copy of these DOT regulations or advise where we can secure a copy of these regulation s so we can know the regulations to which we are subscribing.

Response. The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations concerning automobile parts content labeling are simply those set forth in 49 CFR Part 583.

Question 6. 583.10(c) (1) - (2) We can issue our certificate for the calendar year from January 1 through December 31 of each year.

Response. Section 583.10 (c) (1) provides that, except as provided in (c) (2), the information provided in the certificate is to be for equipment expected to be supplied during the 12-month period beginning on the first July 1 after receipt of the re quest from the auto manufacturer or allied supplier. Paragraph (c) (2) provides that the 12-month period specified in (c) (1) "may be varied in time and length by the manufacturer or allied supplier if it determines that the alteration is not likely to result in less accurate information being provided to consumers."

Therefore, your certificate can only be issued for the calendar year if the auto manufacturer or allied supplier to which you supply equipment makes such a determination.

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

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dimitrios Kallieris -- Associate Professor and Division Chief, Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/16/94 letter from Dimitrios Kallieris to Director, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (OCC 10354)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Kallieris:

This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained "by a three-poin t belt and air bag."

Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for "vehicles equipped with passive restraints," or S5.2 for "vehicles not equipped with passive restraints." The answer to your question depends on whether the restrain t system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of "passive restraint system" set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as:

a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.

Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes.

You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars:

(a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints); (b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements; and

(c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets th e requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant.

We assume that the "three-point belt and air bag" to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a "passive restraint system," and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield.

The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance criteria using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restr aints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation.

Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retaine d by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Hart -- Gerry Baby Products Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/94 letter from Robert L. Hart to Dee Fujita

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is rem oved, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provisi on of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, t hen the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/b ooster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing fo r infants and forward-facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. Wi th that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

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

ID: nht95-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur W. Perkins -- Perkins, Phillips & Puckhaber

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/30/94 letter from Arthur W. Perkins to John Womack (OCC 10397); Also attached to 7/12/91 letter from Paul Rice to Samuel Albury

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 30, 1994, concerning the applicability of "various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo van to a passenger vehicle." The modifications to the veh icle were made prior to its first retail purchase. The modifications included adding bench seats with Type 2 seat belts, adding windows, and covering the interior of the vehicle. The vehicle was involved in an accident in which four persons were ejecte d from the vehicle, two of whom were fatally injured. Your firm represents the two injured passengers and the estates of the two fatally injured passengers in a products liability and negligence action. Your letter asks a number of questions relative t o the liability of three defendants in this action.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to explain that the purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given tha t the issues you raise about the defendants' actions concern past conduct and involve complicated factual issues, I would like to make it clear that this agency cannot comment on the liability of these parties.

Your letter asked a number of questions. One series of questions asks which parties are responsible for ensuring that a vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards prior to its sale. A second series of questions addresses the issue of what types of modifications are considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations." The third series of questions concerns the applicability of requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, n1 to seats and seat attachment hardware.

n1 Your letter refers to Section 210 and Regulation 308. On December 13, 1994, during a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you confirmed that these were references to Standards Nos. 210 and 301.

By way of background information, 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 motor vehicle equipment. NHT SA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567 . Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards. In addition to certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not . . . sell , offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless the vehicle . . . complies with [all applicable standards] and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title ." Section 30112(b) provides certain exceptions to section 30112(a), which may or may not apply under the circumstances you have described.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR @ 567.7). However, as your questions recognize, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations." In asking whether certain changes would be considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations," you listed the following changes: installation of windows, installation of sub-flooring, installation of padding, installation of carpeting, installation of seats, changing the seating arrangements, attaching seat belts to the frames of bench seats, ext erior painting, striping and new wheels.

Tire and rim assemblies (wheels) are specifically mentioned in the regulation as examples of "readily attachable components." Painting is specifically mentioned in the regulation as an example of a minor finishing operation. In previous interpretations of @ 567.7, NHTSA has stated that adding seats or changing seating arrangements (absent "extraordinary ease of installation") would not be considered the addition of "readily attachable components." n2

n2 July 12, 1991, letter to Mr. Samuel Albury, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

With regard to the remaining changes you listed, NHTSA has stated that whether modifications involve "readily attachable components" depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. The agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of insta llation and the need for special expertise. Because changes must be made to the vehicle structure, windows would not be considered "readily attachable components." Unless anchorages are already available, the addition of seat belts to a vehicle also wou ld not be classified as the addition of "readily attachable components." The addition of sub-flooring, padding, and carpeting to the floor of the vehicle may or may not involve the addition of "readily attachable components," depending on the amount of c hanges that were made to the vehicle itself. Finally, because striping is similar to painting, that modification would be considered a "minor finishing operation."

With regard to your questions concerning the requirements in Standard No. 301, that standard sets forth requirements for the integrity of the fuel system and does not set forth requirements applicable to vehicle seats. The requirements for seats and the ir attachment assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. Standard No. 207 requires all seats except side-facing seats and passenger seats in buses to withstand a force of 20 times the weight of the seat applied both in a forward and rearward direction. For a forward-facing seat, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 requires the forces imposed in a forward direction to be applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat b elt loads required by S4.2 of Standard No. 210. There is no requirement for simultaneous loading with respect to forces applied on such seats in the rearward direction.

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