ID: 12118SHD.adj

C. Scott Talbot, Esq.
Howrey & Simon
1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2004-2402

Dear Mr. Talbot:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.1.1(b)(1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

S5.1.1(b)(1) states, in pertinent part:

If adjustable to different positions, [a child restraint must] remain in the same adjustment position during [dynamic] testing that it was in immediately before the testing, . . . .

You state that your client is developing a belt-positioning seat that has an adjustable device that will allow a parent "to orient the vehicle shoulder belt to the child's shoulder." You explain that the device allows "a 'fine tuning' ability to position the belt exactly on the child's shoulder" and permits the belt to be readjusted as the child grows. You state, however, that the device may move in the standard's dynamic test, and ask whether this movement is permitted under S5.1.1(b)(1).

Our answer is that the movement is permitted. In the final rule adopting the requirement (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicated that its intent is to prevent a child's fingers or limbs from being caught between the "shifting parts" of the restraint, and prevent a child's submarining during a crash (where the child's body slides too far forward and downward, legs first). 44 FR at 72132. The agency also stated in the rule that the requirement would prevent injuries to children's hands or fingers "caught between the structural elements of the restraint as it changes position." 44 FR at 72133, emphasis added. In view of these statements, we conclude that S5.1.1(b)(1) is intended to prevent injuries caused by the repositioning of the seating surface of the restraint (i.e., the reclining feature), and thus does not prohibit movement of the vehicle belt adjuster on the child restraint.

Please contact us at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d:9/4/96

ID: 1211c

Ms. Carrie Stabile
85 Sedge Road
Valley Cottage, NY 10989

Dear Ms. Stabile:

This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady- burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment" As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp systems, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference:

C Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

C It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

C The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady- burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady- burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages--an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass"--generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

C Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment.

C Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 12/11/95

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

ID: 12124-4.pja

Mr. Thomas P. Darby
Vice-President, Marketing
Darby Industries, Inc.
R.R. 1, Box 311
Falls, PA 18615

Dear Mr. Darby:

This responds to your letter asking whether the small backhoe you manufacture is a motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no.

Based on the promotional brochure you enclosed, the "Towable TRUCKHOE" is a "full-size backhoe" that can be towed behind a truck "without the need of a trailer." You state that the Towable TRUCKHOE is mainly used at construction sites and in cemeteries and that it has a hydraulic drive system that propels it around job sites at 2 or 3 mph.

NHTSA's regulations apply only to motor vehicles, which are defined in 49 U.S.C. 13102(A)(6) as "vehicle[s] driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." Equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

Based on your letter and brochure, we believe that the Towable TRUCKHOE is manufactured mainly for off-road use and that its transport on the roads (being towed from site to site) is intermittent and merely incidental to its primary purpose. Thus, the Towable TRUCKHOE is not a motor vehicle subject to our safety regulations.

Bear in mind, however, that States have the authority to regulate highway use, and some may have requirements applying to the use of the Towable TRUCKHOE. You may wish to consult State laws for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and towing laws.

We also note a safety concern about another product shown in your brochure, the "TRUCKHOE." The TRUCKHOE is designed to be mounted "on any truck with a capacity of 3/4 ton or more." The dry weight of the TRUCKHOE is listed as 2,240 pounds. Mounting

the TRUCKHOE on a 3/4 ton vehicle would cause the vehicle to exceed its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which may result in overloading the tires and other overloading problems that could degrade the vehicle's stopping distance and other aspects of performance.

Stopping distance is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems. Truck manufacturers must certify compliance with Standard No. 105 based on the vehicle being loaded to the GVWR. Therefore, if the TRUCKHOE were installed by a dealer before sale of the truck, the dealer would have to assure that the vehicle still complied with all of our standards, including Standard No. 105. Even after sale, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to a statutory provision (49 U.S.C. 30122) that prohibits them from knowingly "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. For example, we would consider outfitting the vehicle in such a way that the vehicle exceeded the stopping distance requirements of Standard No. 105 as making the brakes inoperative.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply if the vehicle owner installs the TRUCKHOE, although we encourage owners not to degrade the performance of their vehicles. In addition, many States have laws prohibiting owners from exceeding the GVWR of their vehicles. You may want to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the TRUCKHOE will be sold or used.

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d:8/30/96

ID: 12137.ZTV

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

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1996, to the Administrator asking whether a provision of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "on the front and rear." However, paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 allows them to "be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45

degrees inboard." California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requires that "Clearance lamps shall be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front or rear of the vehicle."

We see no conflict between Standard No. 108 and CVC Sec. 25100(e). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972. Table I specifies photometric minimum candela requirements that these lamps must meet at test points 45 degrees Left, Center, and 45 degrees Right. Thus, even if a clearance lamp is not visible at 45 degrees inboard, it is required to be visible directly to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard. We assume that at that location a clearance lamp would be "visible . . . to the rear of the vehicle" within the meaning of the California requirement.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/29/96

ID: 12157-3.pja

Mr. Kenneth D. MacArthur
Farm Bed Manufacturing, Inc.
Box A, Eisenman Road
Boise, Idaho 83705

Dear Mr. MacArthur:

This responds to your letter requesting that your vehicle be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, your vehicle is not excluded from the regulation.

Your company manufactures self-unloading bulk trailers that have small conveyer belts at the lower rear of the trailer to unload potatoes and other agricultural products. The rear shaft mount for the conveyor belt protrudes 24 inches from the rear of the trailer in order to drop the potatoes onto another conveyer belt (called a piler) that resides at the unloading site. You believe that the small conveyor belt should be considered "work performing equipment," thus making the trailer a "special purpose vehicle" that is excluded from the requirement to have an underride guard.

After January 1998, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, will require most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard. An excluded category of vehicle is special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Your vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The small conveyor belt at no time passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, and it certainly does not do so while the vehicle is in transit. Therefore, your trailers are not excluded from the standard as special purpose vehicles.

As you pointed out in your letter, NHTSA addressed this issue in the January 20, 1996 final rule on underride (61 FR 2004). The National Potato Council commented that an underride guard would impair the function of the conveyor, without explaining how. NHTSA responded that, if this were true, the vehicle would probably be a special purpose vehicle (61 FR at 2022). However, it now appears that the conveyor function would not be impaired in a manner that would exclude it under the rule as written (i.e., the conveyor does not reside in or move through the guard area while the vehicle is moving).

This letter merely applies the existing regulatory language to the question you posed, and does not constitute a judgment that your trailers could operate with a conventional underride guard in place. There may be engineering solutions that you have not yet explored that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of your vehicle.

If there are solutions that you would not be able to implement before the January 26, 1998 effective date of the rule, you can apply for a temporary exemption. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. I have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. Please note that it takes three to four months from the date of submittal before a decision can be made on such an application because it has to be submitted for public comment. You may also submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, copy enclosed) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard to exclude these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:224
d.8/22/97

ID: 12158.wpd

Mr. Gilbert Lenkiewicz
c/o Mr. Haydn Doughty
Cybernet Services Incorp.
704 Edgewater Drive
Dayton, TN 37321

Dear Mr. Lenkiewicz:

This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1996, to John Womack of this Office. We are sending it to you in care of Haydn Doughty as your letter has no return address on it, and the envelope in which it came has been misplaced.

We appreciate your including copies of your letter of March 14, 1996, and Mr. Womack's response of April 4 to Cybernet Services Incorp. In the system you described, an aftermarket strobe light is installed in the center highmounted stop lamp assembly to flash before the activation of the stop lamp signal. Mr. Womack informed Cybernet that this is not permissible under Federal law unless the strobe light is installed by the vehicle owner. This is because Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning when the brake pedal is applied.

You inform us in your letter of June 23 that you have revised the design which "still requires the addition of a strobe light . . . but now does not delay the operation of the normal 'Third Stop Light', during the 3-second flash time of the strobe light." To explain, there will be

"a 3 Watt strobe 'flash' approximately 3-4 times for a period of 3 seconds, anytime the brakes are initially applied. This cycle will only repeat when the brake pedal is released and again depressed. The rapid flashing occurs concurrently with the energization of the normal 'Third Stop Light.' At no time are any of the original stop lamps precluded from providing their intended 'steady burning' indication of both the car and driver's action, i.e. stopping."

I am sorry to inform you that this modification does not alter our previous advice to you. The

fact that the center stop lamp filament is activated simultaneously with the strobe light, rather than after it, does not change the fact that the center stop lamp will be perceived as flashing, even if the stop lamp bulb is steady burning.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office 9202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/23/96

ID: 12159.mls

Mr. G.T. Bowman
Manager, Product Integrity
Rockwell International Corporation
2135 West Maple Road
Troy, MI 48084-7186

Dear Mr. Bowman:

This responds to your request for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reconsider a previous interpretation of the dynamometer test procedures set forth in S5.4.2.2 of Standard No. 121. The purpose of these requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capability during and after exposure to prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In a June 29, 1995, interpretation to Advance Engineered Products, Mr. John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel, stated that "the same limitation on the pressure which can be used to achieve the deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.1 applies to the deceleration in S5.4.2.2."

In support of your request for the agency to reconsider its interpretation, you reference the March 1, 1976 final rule which states that

The "hot stop"deletion was also supported, though most comments on the proposal stated that the whole section should be deleted and not simply the last sentence. The NHTSA purposely did not delete the whole section, so that the sequence of testing would remain as in the past, to preserve the data on recovery that was developed following "hot stop" testing. Therefore the required test level is deleted as proposed, but the testing remains in the standard to maintain the same sequence as in the past. (41 FR 8733, 8787)

Amendatory language in the final rule states that "Section S4.2.2 is amended by deletion of the last sentence of the text." As a result, that provision reads as follows:

One minute after the end of the last deceleration required by S5.4.2.1 and with the drum or disc rotating at a speed of 20 m.p.h., decelerate to a stop at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. The service brake line air pressure shall not exceed 108 p.s.i.

In the proposal leading to the March 1976 final rule, NHTSA had stated that "For all vehicles, the dynamometer brake power and recovery requirements would be modified by increasing the upper pressure limit. The 'hot stop' dynamometer requirement (S5.4.2.2) would be deleted, since the 14 fpsps deceleration rate is not comparable to the new stopping distance requirements. (40 FR 59222, December 22, 1975)

Based on these prior agency statements, I have decided to modify NHTSA's June 1995 interpretation. Upon further reflection, Standard No. 121 does not specify any limitation on the pressure that can be used to achieve the required deceleration rate specified in S5.4.2.2.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:121

d:7/29/96

ID: 12172har.nes

Howard R. Price, Esq.
Brodey & Price
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as it applies to a child restraint harness. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the design of a particular harness is in compliance with Standard 213. Please note that NHTSA does not issue interpretations about the conformance of a specific vehicle or item of equipment with the standards. Those determinations are usually made in the context of an administrative proceeding when a full examination of the issues is possible, such as an enforcement action.

The "All Our Kids Travel Vest, Model TV600," was tested in 1994 by Calspan Advanced Technology Center (Calspan) for NHTSA as part of the agency's compliance test program of child restraint systems. Calspan found that the restraint appeared to comply with all the requirements of Standard 213 except for certain requirements on labeling and installation instructions. A copy of the test report (213-CAL-94-048) is enclosed for your information.

Your first question concerns S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213, which requires that "The system surface provided for the support of the child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface area of not less than 85 square inches."

You ask whether the restraint meets the requirement of S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213. You describe certain "reinforcing ribs" on a metal plate of a harness provided for support of the child occupant's back. You state that the ribs are 0.62 inches in width, raised approximately 0.25 inches above the surface of the metal plate. In addition, there are "corrugations (grooved in the front, ribbed in the rear)" that are 0.5 inches in width and 0.25 inches below the surface of the metal plate. As you describe the metal plate, it is essentially flat in orientation and thus would meet the requirement.

Your second question asks about S5.2.4 of Standard 213, which states, in pertinent part:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface...shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the determination that an edge is exposed is made before or after the removal of any padding or flexible overlay material. The answer is that NHTSA first removes padding or flexible overlay material, then measures the height of protrusions and the radius of exposed edges. (See underlined language above.) You also ask whether S5.2.4 specifies a minimum thickness of 1/2 inch for the metal plate. The intent of S5.2.4 is to ensure that edges that might be contacted through any overlay or padding must be rounded. However, the edges of this particular plate, as opposed to the essentially flat surface, would not be contacted by the dummy.

Your third question pertains to S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213, which sets performance requirements for "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly design to restrain a child using the system...." You ask if S5.4.3.5 or any other paragraph in the standard would prohibit a "'hook and loop' or 'Velcro' closure, designed to fasten around a ring attached to the opposite side of the waist belt...solely because it is not actually a 'buckle'?"

The answer is Standard 213 does not prohibit the "hook and loop" assembly you describe. S5.4.3.5 sets requirements for push button buckles when provided but does not require the buckles types to be standardized. However, in a preamble to a December 13, 1979 final rule adopting upgraded requirements in Standard 213, the agency encouraged child restraint manufacturers to use push button buckles, "so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies." 44 FR 72131, 72136. Our position on this has not changed.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 12186.JEG

Mr. Richard Korytowski
Advantage Autobody Parts
3317 E. Jefferson Blv.
Grand Prairie, Texas 75051

Dear Mr. Korytowski:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of used car dealers selling vehicles which have not had their supplemental restraint systems (air bags) replaced after an accident. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether "full disclosure" of the fact that the air bag is not operating or has not been replaced, and "accepting [the buyer's] signature of being aware of the vehicle's condition and faults-- it is sole responsibility of such a buyer to notify his or hers insurance company or install SRS on one's own without any further legal implications of the seller, regardless of the buyer's action."

As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle, or prevent a used car dealer from selling such a vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection" (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such

as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Texas to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of a repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash, or of a used car dealer for selling such a vehicle.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you would like guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:10/16/96

ID: 12196.ZTV

Mr. Walter Goodman
Project Coordinator
Recreational Electric Vehicles Int. LLC
9330 Industrial Trace
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Mr. Goodman:

We have received your petition of April 8, 1996, to the Administrator requesting a temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your petition is incomplete, as Taylor Vinson explained when you phoned on April 29. I am enclosing a copy of the temporary exemption regulation (49 CFR part 555) so that my comments will be clearer.

First, every petition must contain arguments as to why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. This information is required by Sec. 555.5(b)(7) and is lacking from your petition.

You have petitioned on alternative bases, which is permissible, but the requirements for each basis differ. Applications for exemptions for low-emission vehicles must contain the information specified in Sec. 555.6(b), and those for equivalent overall level of safety must follow the requirements of Sec. 555.6(d). Although you have explained in sufficient detail the exemptions you require and why you require them, the safety arguments required by subsections (b) and (d) have not been made. We suggest that you submit a revised petition that treats each basis separately. If you have any questions on the petition, you may call Taylor again at 202-366-5263.

For planning purposes, manufacturers should expect a decision three to four months after filing a petition that meets our requirements. This time is needed, in part, to prepare, publish, and evaluate comments to a Federal Register notice which is part of each temporary exemption proceeding.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:555 d:5/3/96