ID: 15566.ztv

Mr. Junichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This replies to your letter of July 7, 1997, asking for an interpretation of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter contains a drawing of a headlamp with two light sources, two separate lens and separate aimable reflectors and one housing. You have asked whether a pair of these units would be regarded as a two-lamp or a four-lamp headlighting system for purpose of compliance with the photometric requirements of Figure 15 (four lamps) or Figure 17 (two lamps).

Because the two light sources are in a single housing, we regard your drawing as showing a single headlamp. Therefore, a system consisting of two of these lamps would be a two-lamp system, required to comply with the photometric requirements of Figure 17.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/11/97

ID: 15568.ztv

Mr. Walter E. Ellis
51 Silver Maple Way
Cincinnati, OH 45246

Dear Mr. Ellis:

This Office has received your letter of June 17, 1997, to the Office of Civil Rights of Handicapped, Department of Health, Chicago.

You are concerned about glare caused by upper beams of headlamps used during daylight hours, and believe that this deprives you of "the same civil rights of unrestricted vision" as would occur for wheelchair users were wheelchair ramps for stairs removed. You have asked for the procedure to exercise your civil rights and to correct the problem. You have also asked for a copy of "the law for the Civil Rights of the Handicapped."

This agency establishes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles. One of these, Standard No. 108, covers motor vehicle lighting. After evaluating data from Scandinavian countries which indicated that daytime use of headlamps had the potential to reduce vehicle crashes, and subsequent to Canada's requiring them on all new vehicles sold there, we amended Standard No. 108 to permit a vehicle manufacturer to install "daytime running lamps" (DRL). Thus, the original intent of allowing DRLs was for its potential safety benefit.

Under the American DRL standard, a manufacturer may use any pair of front lamps for the DRL feature, other than parking lamps (too small to be effective) or fog lamps (too bright). If the manufacturer chooses to use the headlamps as a DRL, either the upper or lower beam may be used. The lower beam DRL may be operated either at full or reduced intensity, but a DRL using the upper beam must be operated at reduced intensity as you have noted. As we are beginning to learn from the increasing numbers of vehicles on the road with DRLs, DRLs on some vehicles have resulted in a number of complaints of glare. I assure you that we are aware of these concerns and that we are reviewing possible ways of addressing them.

You might also be interested to know that the owner of a vehicle with DRLs has the right to have the system disconnected. However, the owner cannot have the dealer otherwise modify the performance of the DRL system as installed.

Regarding your assertion that your civil rights may have been violated, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794 and 794(a), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, prohibit discrimination against any qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability. Specifically, these laws prohibit discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, any program or activity conducted by an Executive agency, or any services, programs or activities of a public entity. The term "public entity" includes any State or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government.

If you believe there has been discrimination on the basis of your disability, you may file a complaint directly with the Department of Justice, who will refer it to an agency of the Federal government that has jurisdiction over the matter. Complaints must be filed no later than 180 days from the date of the alleged discrimination. Complaints may be filed on DOJ Form ADA-II No. 1190-007 (which may be requested by calling 202 514-0301) and should be forwarded to:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Coordination and Review Section
P.O. Box 66118
Washington, D.C. 20035-6118

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/29/97

ID: 15590.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps, published on March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10710).

Your first question is:

Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that a visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism, unless the mechanism meets the requirements of S7.8.5.2. New paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) was added as part of the visually/optically aimable headlamp specifications on March 10, 1997. This new paragraph applies to headlamps equipped with VHADs manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, and requires that the calibration be fixed. The headlamp you describe appears to incorporate a VHAD that will be used only on the headlamp, at the time the headlamp was manufactured, and is not intended to be used thereafter. We view this design as conforming to the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that calibration be permanently fixed.

Your second question is whether NHTSA's failure to amend S7.8.5.2(a)(2)(iv) is an oversight, since the preamble indicated that the paragraph would be changed to eliminate an inconsistency. Yes, this was an oversight which we shall correct shortly.

Finally, you have said that "S7.8.5.2(c) does not specify the application of calibration for horizontal VHAD device or vertical VHAD device," and asked whether the requirement applies only for the horizontal VHAD device. Effective with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, S7.8.5.2(c) requires that each headlamp equipped with a VHAD have its calibration permanently fixed. The definition of VHAD in S4 of Standard No. 108, as amended on March 10, 1997 (62 FR at 10717) indicates that it is a device used for determining the horizontal aim of a headlamp, or vertical aim, or both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the prohibition will apply to any VHAD with which a headlamp will be equipped, horizontal, vertical, or both.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/30/97

ID: 15591.jeg

Mr. Shintaro Nakatsuka
Vice President and General Manager
Mazda (North America), Inc.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Nakatsuka:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208's requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. You note in your letter that S4.5.4.3 of the standard requires a telltale on the instrument panel to notify vehicle occupants when the passenger air bag has been deactivated by use of the manual cutoff device that is permitted in certain vehicles under the provisions of S4.5.4. You also note that S4.5.4.3(d) specifies that the telltale "shall not be illuminated at any time when the passenger air bag is not deactivated." You state that it is your belief that this specific prohibition would not apply to the illumination of the telltale for a brief period during a bulb check when the vehicle is started, and ask us to advise whether this is correct. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.

While Standard No. 208 does not address the subject of bulb checks for cut-off device telltales, the general subject of bulb checks for telltales is addressed in other safety standards. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies for most telltales that "(a) telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting." Moreover S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105 requires a bulb check function for brake indicator lamps.

We agree with your view that the concept of a bulb check is well understood by vehicle owners and operators and therefore, if a bulb check function was to be incorporated in the telltale required by S4.5.4.3, there would be no danger of confusion and it could possibly enhance the reliability of the manual cut-off switch device permitted by S4.5.4. Given general industry practice in this area and the treatment in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards of bulb checks for telltales, we agree that the prohibition in S4.5.4.3(d) of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted as not applying to the illumination of the cut-off device telltale for a brief period during a bulb check when the vehicle is started.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.10/20/97

ID: 15596buc.kle

Mr. Bengt Rimark
Br. Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
S-334 21 ANDERSTORP
SWEDEN

Dear Mr. Rimark:

This responds to your letter asking about paragraph S6.2.1 of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we would consider the buckle you developed for infant restraints to be a "hinged button" as the term is used in S6.2.1, or a buckle in the "other buckle release mechanism" category in S6.2.1. Our answer is the buckle would be a hinged button.

S6.2.1 sets forth the buckle release test procedure in Standard 213. The procedure determines where to apply the force needed to release the buckle based on the type of buckle (e.g., hinged, pushbutton, or other) being tested. If the buckle is of the hinged button category, the force would be applied "at the centerline of the button, 3 mm away from the movable edge directly opposite the fixed edge, and in the direction that produces maximum releasing effect." If the buckle is in the "other" category, the force would be applied "on the centerline of the buckle lever or finger tab in the direction that produces the maximum releasing effect." You state that if your buckle is a hinged button, it would have to be redesigned to increase the force needed to release the buckle. You also state that while you can do this, you would prefer not to because the buckle "works well and feels right" with a depression in the buckle that guides the finger to the release point, and because you prefer to keep any force applied close to a newborn as low as possible.

We have examined the sample buckle you sent with your letter and conclude that the buckle has a pushbutton-release mechanism with a fixed edge, which the standard refers to as a "hinged button." While you have reasons for wanting to call the buckle other than hinged button, under the clear language of the standard the buckle is not in the "other" category. If you believe the standard should be changed, there are procedures for petitioning the agency to amend the standard. See 49 CFR Part 552 of our regulations (copy enclosed).

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at 011-202-366-2992 or fax at 011-202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.1/30/98

ID: 15634-r.wkm

Mr. Richard C. Kempf
Manager Technical Legislation
Navistar International
Transportation Corporation
2911 Meyer Road
Post Office Box 1109
Fort Wayne, IN 46801

Dear Mr. Kempf:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to me stating that Navistar interprets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to provide that the antilock brake systems (ABS) required by the standard need not be operational when the vehicle is switched by the driver to the all-wheel drive (AWD) mode. Your interpretation is not correct.

You stated that certain vehicles equipped with AWD normally operate in the two-wheel drive mode, but the AWD mode is selectable by the driver for severe service operation. You also correctly pointed out that paragraph S6.1.11 of Standard No. 121, when relating to special drive conditions, provides that such vehicles are tested with the AWD mode disengaged.

Paragraph S5.1.6(a) of Standard No. 121 provides:

Each single-unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, shall be equipped with an antilock brake system that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear axle of the vehicle. Wheels on other axles of the vehicle may be indirectly controlled by the antilock brake system.

This provision clearly requires that all single-unit vehicles equipped with air brake systems must also be equipped with ABS.

This is a general requirement that applies under all conditions.

There is no exception from this requirement for vehicles equipped with AWD, whether being operated in the 2WD or AWD mode.

The requirements of section S5 are tested in accordance with the conditions set forth in section S6. Paragraph S6.1.11 of that section provides, as one of the road test conditions:

A vehicle equipped with an interlocking axle system or a front wheel drive system that is engaged and disengaged by the driver is tested with the system disengaged (emphasis added).

Thus, an interlocking axle, or AWD, system controlled by the driver is disengaged for the road tests conducted under subsection S6.1. That does not mean, however, that ABS may be disengaged whenever the AWD system is in operation. The equipment requirements of S5 are not limited by the road test conditions of S6.

In summary, the ABS required by Standard 121 may not be disengaged or disabled when the vehicle is switched into AWD mode, but a vehicle in the AWD mode would not be required to meet the road test requirements of subsection S6.1. While the ABS may not be disabled, however, its operation could be modified to better suit off-road conditions, such as construction, logging, or mining operations, when AWD is selected.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:121
d.5/1/98

ID: 15639.drn

Scott Summers, Esq.
Agency Legal Counsel's Office
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NE 68509-4987

Dear Mr. Summers:

This responds to your letter asking about the difference in definitions of "schoolbus" at 49 U.S.C. 30125 and at 49 CFR 571.3. This question arose from comments on Nebraska's proposed change in the State definition of "school bus." You attached a letter from Mr. James R. Cunningham, Executive Director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, questioning the "inconsistency between the August 1995 document ['Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements'] and the Federal Statute."

The statutory definition of "schoolbus" at 30125 is "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school."

In NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, a "school bus" is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation" (emphasis added). Section 571.3 defines "bus" as a motor vehicle "designed for carrying more than 10 persons." The 571.3 definition of "bus" includes the driver, who is a "person" carried on the bus.

In the August 1995 "Frequently Asked Questions" document, NHTSA restates the regulatory definition of "school bus" found at 49 CFR 571.3.

NHTSA enacted its regulatory definition of "school bus" following enactment of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. In the final rule establishing the new definition of "school bus" (49 CFR 571.3), NHTSA addressed the point raised by Mr. Cunningham. In that final rule, NHTSA explained that it adopted a more expansive definition of "school bus" that differs somewhat from the statutory definition, so that the definition would apply to school buses that transport 10 students. In a Federal Register notice of December 31, 1975 (40 FR 60033, at 60034) (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated:

In conforming its proposal to the Congressional definition, the NHTSA limited "school bus" to a bus that carries at least 11 passengers in addition to the driver. Based on comments received ... , it appears that the definition should be expanded slightly to include buses that carry 10 passengers. This eliminates a departure from previous NHTSA vehicle categorization that classifies vehicles with 10 or fewer occupant seating positions as MPVs or passenger cars and vehicles with 11 or more seating positions as buses. To adhere strictly to the Congressional definition would leave the small group of vehicles that transport 10 students without coverage under either the school bus, the MPV, or the passenger car standards.

Some commenters incorrectly assumed that the Congressional definition of "school bus" established an outer limit on the NHTSA's authority to regulate vehicles that transport students as such. To the contrary, the Congressional definition is a direction to the NHTSA that the new standards in this area must not be applied to a narrower category of vehicle. As long as that direction of Congress is satisfied, the NHTSA is, however, authorized to decide the scope of its standards, and in this case to expand on the Congressional definition to implement the mandate effectively.

Please note that Nebraska may adopt a state definition of "school bus" that differs from the Federal definition. State definitions of "school bus" affect the scope of State school bus requirements, while the Federal definition affects the scope of Federal requirements. For example, the State definitions determine which vehicles are subject to the State operational requirements for school buses. However, 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 applicable to school buses.

This agency has urged the States to follow NHTSA's definition of "school bus" and not to establish operational rules that would allow schools and school districts to carry students on buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards. School buses that comply with NHTSA's school bus safety standards are the safest form of pupil transportation.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref: 571.3
d.10/14/97

ID: 15643.ztv

Mr. Walter T. Jakobowski
President
Signal Dynamics Corporation
P.O. Box 350441
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jakobowski:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1997, asking for an interpretation regarding the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your company manufactures motorcycle headlamp modulators "that comply with Standard No. 108." You report receiving comments that certain States do not allow use of this equipment. You ask for "an interpretation and a copy of the statutes that provide for Federal Law pre-empting any state laws that would disallow use of said Headlight Modulator."

Section 30103(b) of Title 49, United States Code, provides in pertinent part that:

Paragraph S7.9.4 Motorcycle headlamp modulation (formerly S5.6) of Standard No. 108 specifies that a headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate, provided that it does so in accordance with the requirements prescribed by that paragraph. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State may have its own standard which allows a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate in the same manner as prescribed under S7.9.4. However, since the Federal standard specifically allows a modulation of motorcycle headlamps, a State cannot have a standard prohibiting it. For your information, we are not aware of any State that forbids modulation of motorcycle headlamps.

Taylor Vinson provided you with a copy of 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) on your visit to our Office on July 28. If you have further questions, you may reach him at 202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:vsa#108

d.9/11/97

ID: 15647.ztv

Mr. Michael J. Rood
Vice President, Engineering
Safe-Lite Mfg. Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Rood:

This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We apologize for the delay in responding, but your letter presented unique questions which took some time to resolve to the agency's satisfaction.

There are three aspects of reflex reflector conspicuity treatment that you wish us to address, to clarify questions asked by owners who wish to retrofit their trailers, as well as by manufacturers of new trailers. Retrofitting of trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, of course, is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108.

As you point out, S5.7.2.2(a) allows the use of reflex reflectors as a conspicuity alternative to S5.7.1.4 "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required. . . ." You believe that because reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed, it is impossible that reflex reflectors can comply in some instances with the literal requirement of S5.7.2.2 that they be applied "in the same length" as retroreflective sheeting to meet conspicuity requirements.

The conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, including the provisions referring to practicability, are stated in terms of sheeting material. Each reflex reflector used to fulfill conspicuity requirements must have photometric performance equivalent to that of a 100 mm length of sheeting material, and the conspicuity treatment may then be implemented using reflex reflectors with a center-to-center spacing not greater than 100 mm. Conspicuity treatments using one reflex reflector as an alternative to 100 mm of sheeting material would be equivalent in minimum performance and nearly identical in reflective appearance to a treatment using sheeting material.

The trailer manufacturer has the choice of using either reflex reflectors or sheeting material. However, reflex reflectors could not be used to comply with the standard if they cannot replicate a complying sheeting material installation. For example, S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires the conspicuity treatment to originate and terminate "as close to the front and rear as practicable," and that it need not be continuous as long as "the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." If sheeting material would terminate closer to the front or rear than is possible with reflex reflectors on a particular trailer, or if it results in a more even distribution of spaces, then sheeting material must be used to meet the practicability provisions. There may be instances when sheeting material is better than reflex reflectors in taking account of ribs and obstructions on the trailer body in marking the overall length of the vehicle, or when its use would result in lesser gaps in the treatment than use of reflex reflectors.

Similarly, if a trailer manufacturer determines that it may use reflex reflectors as a conspicuity treatment, it must use a single reflector of 100 mm length rather than a bar of reflectors of 300 mm if the single reflector would more closely mark the extreme width or length of the trailer or result in smaller gaps.

Underride Protection Devices

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(c) requires a strip of retroreflective sheeting in alternating colors to be installed across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device.

You have enclosed sample reflex reflector bars that are 12 inches (approximately 300 mm) in length. You point out that, unlike retroreflective sheeting, reflex reflectors cannot be trimmed in application. Assuming that the underride protection bar is 90 inches (7' 6") in length, you present two options. In the first option, you would center a white reflex reflector on the bar, and work outward with alternating red and white reflectors (seven in all), which would leave 3 inches of uncovered surface at both ends of the underride bar. In the second option, you would work inward from reflectors placed at the end of the underride bar, distributing the 6 inches of uncovered surface evenly between reflectors. We understand that this means that seven reflectors would be provided, with only 1 inch of space between adjacent reflectors.

The standard requires reflex reflectors to be used "in the same locations and in the same length in which retroreflective sheeting is required...with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm (4 in) from the center of each adjacent reflector." The underride protection device in question would have been treated with 90 inches of sheeting material, and an exact replacement using reflex reflectors would require 22 reflex reflectors with each reflector replacing 4 inches of sheeting material. However, Standard No. 108 does not recognize fractional reflex reflectors because, unlike sheeting material, they are non-homogenous indivisible units. Nor does it assume that there will be sufficient space to apply a greater number of whole reflex reflectors. Therefore, the agency has decided that the "full width" requirement can be met by using the greatest number of whole reflectors (on a basis of one reflector per 4 inches) that will fit in the length required for sheeting material. Since both of the options you propose use 21 rather than 22 reflex reflectors, neither would satisfy the standard. Given the space limitations on an underride guard, you would have to supplement the bars of three reflectors with some double or single reflectors to achieve acceptable coverage. Since the maximum cumulative space between reflectors would always be less than 4 inches per element of the conspicuity treatment, the distribution of spaces would have little practical significance. However, arrangements that mark the actual full width are always preferable to those that only approximate it.

Rear Width of a Trailer

Similarly, the conspicuity treatment specified in S5.7.1.4.1(a) is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer." You ask how a continuous pattern of alternating red and white reflex reflectors are to be applied in multiples of 12-inch segments when there are rear door hardware obstructions that do not allow it.

You suggest that if the linear space between hardware obstructions is between 12 and 24 inches, then one reflex reflector can be centered in this space provided that it is a different color than its two neighbors. If the space is between 24 and 36 inches, two reflex reflectors could be centered, again preserving a pattern of alternating colors. This scheme would apply in successive 12-inch increments with the reflectors applied at both ends of the completed scheme, "positioned as close to each end as practicable."

As in the underride interpretation above, the minimum number of reflex reflectors needed to implement an element of conspicuity treatment is the number of mm (or inches) of sheeting material that would have been used, divided by 100 mm (or 4 inches) and rounded down to the greatest whole number. In general, it would be a matter of chance if the minimum number of reflex reflectors could be arranged in a single line when obstructions are present, especially when the reflectors are combined in bars of three. However, element 1 of the rear trailer conspicuity treatment (S5.7.1.4.1(a)) is not required to be located on the same parallel plane; obstructions can be cleared by mounting some of the reflex reflector bars above or below obstructions to obtain a greater number of reflex reflectors in the treatment. Of course, the treatment must mark the full width of the body in the same manner as a treatment with sheeting material.

Unique Trailer Side Walls and Rub Rails

The required conspicuity treatment for trailer sides is set forth in S5.7.1.4.2(a). It requires that conspicuity treatment originate and terminate as close to the front and rear as practicable, and that a strip of retroreflective sheeting need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.

You bring to our attention the fact that the distance from one outer rib to another on the side of some "plate" trailers could vary from 5 to 42 inches, and that your reflector will not fit into a section narrower than 12 inches. You would provide reflex reflectors in alternate color segments to cover not less than half the trailer length, even though there might be a space between some segments. This treatment would start and finish as close to both ends of the trailer "as practicable," and meet the requirement of S5.7.1.3(c) that neither color in the aggregate exceed two-thirds of the total provided to mark the sides.

As noted above, the practicability requirements for the placement and distribution of the retroreflective material in S5.7.1.4.2(a) were conceived and expressed in terms of a treatment using sheeting. If these requirements are more closely fulfilled using sheeting material, then sheeting material must be used. Although either sheeting material or reflex reflectors could be used on trailers with uninterrupted sills, it may be impossible to use triple reflector bars exclusively as a complying conspicuity treatment on the side of a trailer with ribs. Depending on the distance between the ribs, trailer manufacturers would be expected to use single reflectors or bars of two reflectors (or simply to use sheeting material) for that element of the conspicuity treatment.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/6/98

ID: 17170.volvo

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your January 30, 1998, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) following up on an earlier interpretation to you concerning Volvo's manufacture of a rear-facing toddler restraint. The restraint would be used rear-facing only, and recommended for children weighing between 20 and 40 pounds (lb.). I regret the delay in responding.

Your earlier letter asked about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a rear-facing restraint that would be recommended only for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. You did not describe the restraint in detail. Your present letter provides the following description:

[T]he Volvo CRS [child restraint system] is secured by a Type I seat belt assembly (as defined by in FMVSS 209). Additionally, the Volvo CRS is secured by a bar which is attached to the back of the Volvo CRS, the other end of the bar resting against the vehicle (certification platform) floor. This same configuration and installation procedure would be used in a vehicle during normal, i.e., "everyday," use.

You specifically ask about the "installation" requirement in S5.3.2 of the standard, as it would apply to your restraint. S5.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

When installed on a vehicle seat, each add-on child restraint system . . .shall be capable of being restrained against forward movement solely by means of a Type I seat belt assembly (defined in 571.209) that meets Standard No. 208 (571.208), or by means of a Type I seat belt assembly plus one additional anchorage strap that is supplied with the system and conforms to S5.4. . . .

You ask for confirmation that the term "additional anchorage strap" would include the bar you would use in your system. We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it. We interpret a "strap" to consist of flexible material. S5.3.2 specifies that a strap may be provided so long as the strap conforms to S5.4. Because S5.4 sets forth requirements for belts, belt buckles and belt webbing, it is clear that any "strap" provided must be of belt webbing. Further, S5.3.2 is meant to support the standardization of the means of attaching child restraints to increase the likelihood that child seats are properly installed.  The reference to the "additional anchorage strap" made allowances for the provision of a top tether anchorage strap, which was at one time provided on most, if not all, forward-facing child restraints. The bar you ask about would be unique to your system and inconsistent with the standardized method of attaching a child restraint.

It should be noted that determining conformance with S5.3.2 is made when the child restraint seat is "on a vehicle seat." Due in part to the quoted language, the agency will assess the performance of the child seat using just the vehicle seat and not the floor. Also, under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, your type of child restraint system must meet performance requirements when "secured to the standard vehicle seat using only the standard vehicle lap belt." The quoted phrase means that NHTSA will not use a means supplemental to the lap belt, such as a bar, of securing a child seat to the vehicle seat in the agency's compliance test. The lap belt alone is used because the agency found that a very high percentage of parents did not use the supplemental tether strap to secure their child seats even when they knew the strap was needed to provide their child protection. Your bar would be supplemental to the lap belt attachment, similar to a tether on a child seat. Similar to a tether, there is a strong likelihood that the bar would be misused with the seat. Accordingly, for the same reasons that a tether is not used in the compliance test, the bar could also not be used in the compliance test.

I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:213
d.7/6/98