ID: 11698.ZTV

M. Guy Dorleans
International Regulatory Affairs Manager
VALEO
34, rue St.-Andre
93012 Bobigny cedex
France

Dear M. Dorleans:

We have received your letter of March 19, 1996, asking for an interpretation of paragraphs S7.2(a) and S7.5(g) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. These paragraphs require that lenses of replaceable bulb headlamps be marked with the DOT symbol and the HB-type of light source used in the headlamp. Your engineers contemplate a clear-lensed headlamp, and would like to engrave these markings on a visible area of the inner bezel where they are easily seen from the outside. You ask for confirmation that this would meet the "spirit" of the requirement even if the definition of lens doesn't apply to an interior part.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify objective requirements. Failure to mark the lens in the manner specified by Standard No. 108 would create a noncompliance with the standard. Paragraphs S7.2(a) and S7.5(g) are very specific in their requirements that the lens be marked, and do not allow alternative marking of the bezel if the lens is clear.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/25/96

ID: 11701DRN

Mr. Ernest Cuff
General Manager
Sputhe Engineering, Inc.
11185 Lime Kiln Road
Grass Valley, CA 95949-9715

Dear Mr. Cuff:

This responds to your letter asking several questions concerning your planned manufacture of motorcycles. You explain that your company presently manufactures Aaftermarket [motorcycle] engine and transmission components@ and is negotiating with an Australian company to manufacture and sell motorcycles in the United States.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its product meets all applicable standards.

Your questions are as follows:

1. What if any, standards must be met for U.S. production?

ANSWER: The following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 C.F.R. Part 571) apply to motorcycles: Standard No. 106, Brake hoses; Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 111 Rearview mirrors; Standard No. 115 Vehicle identification number - basic requirements; Standard No. 116 Motor vehicle brake fluids; Standard No. 119 New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; Standard No. 122 Motorcycle brake systems; and Standard No. 123 Motorcycle controls and displays.

Each motorcycle must be certified by its manufacturer as meeting all applicable safety standards. The certification must be made in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. In addition, if a vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the vehicle manufacturer must notify all owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and provide a remedy without charge.

A new manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification). I am, for your information, enclosing an information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" and another sheet that describes how you may obtain copies of NHTSA=s standards.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established motor vehicle noise and emission standards. For information on EPA's requirements, please contact:

Office of Mobile Sources, ANR-455 Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Telephone (202) 260-7645

2. Is there an annual level of production at which certain rules would apply, or would all rules apply for a production of as low as 2 to 3 units per year?

ANSWER: Each motorcycle must be certified as meeting the safety standards, regardless of production levels. Thus, even if only one motorcycle is manufactured, all the requirements mentioned in our response to question one would apply.

3. Would the Australian certification be accepted here, or would it be necessary to initiate a whole new round of testing to achieve U.S. certification?

ANSWER: As noted above, it is the manufacturer, not NHTSA, who self-certifies its motor vehicles or items of equipment. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to initiate any kind of testing for their certifications.

Each of NHTSA'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. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would

be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance.

It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer conducted testing that strictly followed a specific standard's compliance test

procedures. However, "reasonable care" might be shown even if modified test procedures were used.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571.3 d:4/24/96

While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

ID: 11704.WKM

Richard E. Trachtenberg, Esq.
Post Office Box 11005
330 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0903

Dear Mr. Trachtenberg:

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1996 addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You provide what you think may be tire identification number (TIN) 5R5691439T and ask us to verify that the number is a TIN and if so, provide you the information that it represents. You also state that the tire may be a retreaded tire. Our answer is that this number does not appear to be a TIN.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 574.5 establishes the requirement for TINs and specifies the information to be contained therein as well as the format and sequence of such information. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be composed of four groups of symbols, letters and/or numbers. The first grouping, composed of two or three symbols, represents the manufacturer's identification mark assigned by this agency in accordance with Part 574.6. The second and third groupings identify the tire size and significant characteristics of the tire respectively, both at the option of the manufacturer. The fourth grouping of three symbols shows the week and year of manufacture.

The series of numbers and letters in question, 5R5691439T, do not comply with the requirements of Part 574.5. The first two or three characters, A5R@ or A5R5, have not been assigned by this agency. New tires are assigned a two-character code which may be either two letters or a number and a letter, for example ABA@ or A1B.@ Retreaded tires are assigned a three-letter code, such as ACJX.@ The numbers "439" could represent the manufacturing date, for example the 43d week of 1989, but there is no provision in the regulation for a "T" at the end of the

TIN. Thus, these numbers and letters do not comply with the TIN requirements of Part 574.5, and this agency has no record of or information on this particular series of numbers and letters.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:574 d:5/1/96

ID: 11704R.WKM

Richard E. Trachtenberg, Esq.
P.O. Box 11005
330 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0903

Dear Mr. Trachtenberg:

This letter supersedes my letter to you of May 1, 1996, which contains a transcription error.

This responds to your letter of March 27, 1996, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You provide what you think may be tire identification number (TIN) 5R5691439T and ask us to verify that the number is a TIN and if so, provide you the information that it represents. You also state that the tire may be a retreaded tire. Our answer is that this number does not appear to be a TIN.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 574.5 establishes the requirement for TINs and specifies the information to be contained therein as well as the format and sequence of such information. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be composed of four groups of symbols, letters and/or numbers. The first grouping, composed of two or three symbols, represents the manufacturer's identification mark assigned by this agency in accordance with Part 574.6. The second and third groupings identify the tire size and significant characteristics of the tire respectively, both at the option of the manufacturer. The fourth grouping of three symbols shows the week and year of manufacture.

The series of numbers and letters in question, 5R5691439T, do not comply with the requirements of Part 574.5. The first two or three characters, A5R@ or A5R5, have not been assigned by this agency. New tires are assigned a two-character code which may be either two letters or a number and a letter, for example ABA@ or A1B.@ Retreaded tires are assigned a three-letter code, such as ACJX.@ The numbers "439" could represent the manufacturing date, for example the 43d week of 1989, but there is no provision in the regulation for a "T" at the end of the

TIN. Thus, these numbers and letters do not comply with the TIN requirements of Part 574.5, and this agency has no record of or information on this particular series of numbers and letters.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:574 d:6/18/96

2

ID: 11705-1.PJA

Mr. James O. Webb
Chief Engineer
Converto Mfg. Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 287
Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your letter pointing out some difficulties you anticipate in complying with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Your company manufactures Aroll off@ hoist equipment, both trailer and truck mounted, that is used to pick up, put down, and dump the long rectangular dumpsters often used to collect trash and construction debris. The short answer to your question is that your straight-body vehicles are excluded from the requirements, while the trailers are not.

Your equipment basically consists of frame rails that lay on the back of the truck or trailer and are hinged at the rear of the trailer. To load a dumpster, the front end of the frame rails are raised by hydraulic pistons to a 45 to 50 degree angle, until the rear end of the rails touches the ground behind the vehicle. Once at this angle, a hoist cable pulls the dumpster up the rails onto the back of the vehicle, after which the pistons are collapsed to return the dumpster to a horizontal orientation. The opposite sequence is used to lower the dumpster. Based on the product literature you enclosed, it appears that your factory mounts this equipment on new truck and trailer chassis prior to first sale. You state that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to mount underride guards on these vehicles, presumably because the guard would be mounted on the rails and would prevent them from being fully raised.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). Two excluded categories of vehicles that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are single unit trucks and special purpose vehicles.

With regard to the Outside Rail Roll-off Tilt Frame Hoist installed on a truck, the vehicle is excluded. Note that the regulation applies only to trailers and semitrailers. Because these vehicles are single unit (i.e., unarticulated) trucks, FMVSS No. 224 does not apply to them.

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as being Aa 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 Semi- trailer Roll-off Tilt Frame Hoist is not excluded, because it does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Although NHTSA considers the rails to be work performing equipment that, as the frame is tilted, passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, they do not do so while the vehicle is in transit.

NHTSA addressed the issue of roll off hoist trailers in the final rule. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a trade group that we believe represents many of your customers, requested special consideration for roll-off hoist vehicles. However, NSWMA=s main objection was requiring guards on the containers themselves, which is not your concern. NSWMA stated in their comment that:

[t]he most common type of roll-off tilt frame used is the >outside rail= design . . . In these cases the rear underride [guard] required by [23 CFR] 393.86 will contact the ground at a frame tilt angle of approximate [sic] 40 degrees. Since this causes instability if the ground is uneven, a number of manufacturers have resorted to a retractable underride [guard] design, where a strut attached to the rear chassis frame will cause the underride [guard] to move forward and out of the interference area as the frame is tilted.

NHTSA assumed by this comment that a design solution had been found to address the problem of the guard hitting the ground. Therefore, NHTSA believed it was only necessary to respond to NSWMA that guards were not required on the container, only the trailer that carries it. We suggest that you contact NSWMA to explore the possibility of using the retractable guard design that it discussed.

If you believe your trailers should be excluded from Standard No. 224, you may submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, which I have enclosed for your convenience) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard. 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

1 Enclosure: Part 552 ref:224 d:5/16/96

ID: 11708DRN

Mr. Mike Graham
Business Administrator
Damascus Community Church
14251 S.E. Rust Way
Boring, OR 97009

Dear Mr. Graham:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Hedlund, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs, asking about the term school "related activities" included in NHTSA's August 1995 bulletin, "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." The term derives from the definition of "school bus" in the federal statute administered by NHTSA.

"Schoolbus" is defined at Title 49 of the United States Code, section 30125(a)(1) as:

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. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA's safety standards are codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. At Part 571.3, Definitions, we define "school bus" as:

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).

Your letter specifically refers to the "Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations." These are promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), our sister agency in the U.S.Department of Transportation. For further information about the motor carrier safety regulations, please contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0740.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:vsa d:4/24/96

ID: 11719MLV

Mr. Don Bearden
Director - Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Bearden:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996, requesting confirmation that a vehicle certified as a "passenger car" would not be subject to the labeling requirements of 49 CFR 575.105.

You are correct. Section 575.105(b) states that the requirements apply only to "multipurpose passenger vehicles."

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:575.105 d:4/18/96

ID: 11732-1.PJA

Ms. Brigitte Neifer
Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland
GmbH & Do. KG
Firmensitz
Viktoriaallee 3-5
D-52066 Aaohen GERMANY

Dear Ms. Neifer:

This responds to your letter asking whether one of your customers may use item 2 glazing (ordinary tempered glass) for motorcycle windshields. Your customer uses a kind of tempered glass not mentioned in our standard on its European model motorcycles, and is looking for a windscreen material for vehicles to be sold in the U.S. market. Although item 1 (laminated) glass is permitted in this application, your client is searching for an alternative and believes that item 2 (ordinary tempered) glazing should also be allowed on this 50 km/h maximum speed motorcycle, Ajust as it is allowed on off-highway machines.@ The short answer to your question is no, tempered glass is not one of the permitted materials in that location.

Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205) incorporates by reference ANSI Z26.1-1977 (Z26), which explains the performance requirements and application of different types of glazing materials. Z26 describes item 2 glazing as being for use Aanywhere in Motor Vehicle except windshields.@ Therefore, item 2 glazing is explicitly not allowed to be used on windshields, including motorcycle windscreens. Tempered glass does not have some of the safety attributes of laminated glass and thus is not permitted on windshields. Because motor vehicles are required to be safer than off-road vehicles, the fact that item 2 glazing may be used in off-highway vehicles (over which NHTSA has no jurisdiction) is immaterial.

As far as alternatives to item 1 glazing, item numbers 6, 7, and 10 glazing are also permitted. In certain locations, you may also use item numbers 5, 12, 13, 16A and B glazing.

Last, a note of clarification. You referred in your letter to Athe current version@ of the ANSI standard. Please be aware that it is the 1977 version of Z26 that is referenced and that any revisions of Z26 have no effect on the Federal requirements unless NHTSA adopts the revised ANSI standard in its regulations. I hope this information is helpful. 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,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:205 d:5/9/96

ID: 11737JUM.JC2

Mr. J.H. Brown
President
Jumpin= Jac=s F.N.
P.O. Box 526146
Miami, FL 33152-6146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 11, 1996 letter to William Boehly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Associate Administrator for Research and Development. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You ask for this agency=s Aappraisal and we hope NHTSA approval@ of a product that you are seeking to develop, which you call the APT-103 Child Protector Safety Harness.@ You enclosed a brochure on the PT-103 harness in your letter. I note that you marked the word AConfidential@ on the brochure. In an April 16, 1996 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and brochure in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established 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 the information set forth in your letter.

According to the brochure, the PT-103 consists of a vest that would cover the child=s chest, a foam vest- like garment for the child=s neck (which looks like a Alife preserver@ used on

water), and a series of padded straps that would form a type of headgear for the child=s head. The brochure implies in several places that children are better protected using the PT-103 harness and a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt than with the lap and shoulder belt alone.

In the telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you clarified an important point about your product. You explained that the PT-103 is not attached in any manner to the vehicle=s belt system, and is not intended to replace the vehicle belt system as the means of restraining the child. Instead, the PT-103 is simply a garment consisting of a padded vest, neckware and headgear, intended for a child restrained in the vehicle=s seat belts or in a child seat. The idea is for the child to be wearing a protective garment in the event of a crash.

NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as ('30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; [or] (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the statute. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. First is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used in motor vehicles. While you indicated that the PT-103 can also be used in boats and for contact sports, you informed Ms. Fujita that its major use will be in automobiles. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness would be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is subject to NHTSA=s authority.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the PT-103. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a padded garment that can be used with a child safety seat or with the vehicle=s belt system.

While no standard applies to the PT-103, under our statute all items of motor vehicle equipment must not contain any safety-related defects. 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 responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I would like to note a few concerns about the brochure you enclosed on the PT-103. It describes the PT-103 as being available in a size that is suitable for use with children weighing 15 to 25 pounds (lb). This description implies that the harness is suitable for use by infants and small children, and that these children can be restrained using a vehicle=s lap and shoulder belt system. That practice may not be best for the child.

NHTSA believes, based on studies, that children should be restrained in rear-facing child seats until they are at least 12 months old (22 lb), and should not be placed in a restraint system that faces the child forward. A rear-facing child seat is needed so that, in a crash, the forces are spread evenly across the infant's back and shoulders, the strongest part of the child's body. Similarly, we believe small children should use a child restraint system until they outgrow their child seat. To avoid possibly misleading consumers into moving their children into a vehicle belt system before the child is developed enough for it, the PT-103 should be recommended only for older children.

Another concern relates to the fact that the harnesses in a child seat works best when used snugly with minimal padding or heavy clothing between the child and the safety seat. Similarly, a safety belt system works best with minimum slack. Excessive padding can compress in crash, introducing too much slack in the belt system that can cause the child occupant to be fully or partially ejected in a crash. A vest system that consisted of too much padding may have that negative effect.

Another concern relates to the possibility that some consumers may think your device is supposed to replace a child seat or vehicle seat belt system as the means of restraining a child in a crash. We suggest you prominently label the device as not being intended for use as a child restraint system, and clearly instruct consumers of this in advertising and other literature included with the PT-103. Further, you refer to the device as a Asafety harness.@ The term Aharness@ has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a type of child restraint system. We are concerned that calling your device a Asafety harness@ could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability as a child restraint system, which may result in some consumers attaching the PT-103 to the vehicle with the vehicle=s belts, as they would with other harnesses (which are Achild restraints@). With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "safety harness@ in naming the PT-103.

Finally, we also note the photograph on page five of the brochure, showing children restrained in vehicle lap and shoulder belts A(Without PT-103),@ apparently is intended to show Abefore@ and Aafter@ shots of what happens in a crash without your device, to illustrate a need for the PT-103. The Aafter@ shot shows the childrens= heads between their knees, apparently to depict that in a crash situation a child would have no upper torso restraint whatsoever. We wish to point out that this is probably misleading, because the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder belt would provide restraint in the type of emergency situation presumably depicted in the photograph. Thus, the situation shown in the Aafter@ shot is not realistic.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/10/96

ID: 11738BBY.BLT

Mr. Edward C. Chen
Pacific Quest International
9 Egret Lane
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your April 9, 1996, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called Athe BabyBelt.@ You ask whether the BabyBelt is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the BabyBelt in a letter and sketch to the agency. I note that you had marked the word AProprietary@ on the letter. In an April 11, 1996, telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and sketch in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

According to your letter, the BabyBelt is a device designed for use with forward-facing child restraint systems, to Asafely secure a child safety seat to the front passenger bucket style auto seat.@ The BabyBelt consists of Aan automobile grade nylon web belt (approximately 52 inches long), a positive retention buckle system (two pieces, made out of stamped steel), and an adjustable velcro attachment sleeve.@ The BabyBelt is placed through the frame of a child seat, Aand then wrapped around the back rest of the passenger seat. The belt is then tightened down to prevent the baby seat [sic] from moving in the case of sudden deceleration.@ You state that the BabyBelt is to supplement, and not replace, the vehicle=s belt system as the means for attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. The product will be permanently labeled with a warning that the BabyBelt is supplemental to the vehicle belt system.

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, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established 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 the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the BabyBelt. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the BabyBelt to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the BabyBelt, 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 responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You ask us to discuss any concerns we might have about the BabyBelt. One concern we have relates to the strength of the vehicle seat back to which the BabyBelt would be attached. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with the requirements of Standard 207, Seating Systems. Among other requirements, Standard 207 specifies strength requirements for the vehicle seat back, to minimize the likelihood of seat failure in a crash. When the BabyBelt is attached to the vehicle seat back as shown in your sketch, in the event of a crash the seat back will be subjected to forces resulting from the loading of the child seat and child occupant. In the absence of the BabyBelt, these forces are not normally imposed on the vehicle seat back, but are instead transferred to the vehicle structure through the seat belt anchorages. We suggest that you evaluate the strength of vehicle seats to ensure that they are strong enough for the loads imposed by the child seat and child occupant through the BabyBelt.

Another concern relates to where in the vehicle a child seat would have to be located to use the BabyBelt. Because the BabyBelt secures a child seat by wrapping around the back of the seat back on which the child seat is attached, the product can only be used with bucket style seats (as indicated on your sketch) or with a split back seat (as you informed Ms. Fujita). Using the BabyBelt with a bucket style seat necessitates placing the child restraint in the front seat of most passenger cars, because bucket seats are provided in the front, and not in the rear. Children are safer riding in the rear seats of vehicles than in the front seat. We recommend your instructions avoid encouraging consumers to place a child seat in the front seat if the child restraint can be placed in the rear. You might also consider informing them that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. Such a statement is required to be in the instructions for child restraints systems (49 CFR '571.213, S5.6.1.1).

Related to the concern discussed directly above, it appears the BabyBelt could possibly be used in the rear seat in a passenger car that has a split back seat, but even there it cannot be used in the center rear seating position. The rear center seating position is generally the safest.

Finally, you state in your letter that the BabyBelt will have a permanent warning label indicating that the belt is not to replace the vehicle=s belt system as a means of attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. We agree that the warning is critical to reduce the likelihood that consumers may mistakenly use the BabyBelt as the primary means of attaching their child seats to the vehicle seat, and urge you to make the permanent warning clear and conspicuous. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them Ato be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the user=s attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle . . . .@ Enclosed is an October 13, 1993 final rule on this Alockability@ requirement. It appears that the requirement will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the BabyBelt.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/15/96