ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: nht95-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

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

TO: The Honorable Bob Graham -- United States Senate

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/15/94 letter from Bob Graham to John Womack; Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Connie Mack (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to the DOT

TEXT: Dear Senator Graham:

Thank you for your letter of December 15, 1994, addressed to John Womack of this office. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard Levy, Vice-President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked "Does NHTSA have jurisd iction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely, Philip R. Recht

Enclosure:

JAN 17 1995

Mr. Howard J. Levy Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Avenue, Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Ricardo Martinez, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), referring to a bill before the Puerto Rico Senate. The bill would require all used tires imported into Puerto Rico to have a minimum of 5/32 inch tread depth and would impose a tax of $ 10 per tire.

You stated that the proposed requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law," and that if the proposal became law it "would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island." You asked, "Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws i n Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested this agency's help in this matter.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the laws and regulations that we administer. As discussed below, however, those laws and regulations will not be of help to you with respect to your concerns about the proposed Puerto Rico law.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by Federal law (Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act)) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle eq uipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. It also prohibits commercial businesses from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment with a safety standard.

NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used vehicles or equipment. (I note that if a used tire is imported as motor vehicle equipment, the tire must have complied with the safety standards at the time of its manufacture.) Instead, the individ ual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles and equipment. Also, the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway Administration has the authority to regulate commercial vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce. (Your s tatement that the proposed Puerto Rico tread depth requirement is 3/32 inch more than is "required by U.S. law" appears to be referring to a requirement specified by the Office of Motor Carriers, Federal Highway Administration, for commercial vehicles. See 49 CFR @ 393.75(c)).

I will now turn to your question concerning whether NHTSA has jurisdiction over the laws being considered by the Puerto Rican Senate. The Safety Act includes one provision which addresses Federal preemption of state laws. That provision (49 U.S.C. @ 30 103(b)) specifies that when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state (including Puerto Rico) may maintain a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is i dentical to the Federal standard. (States may, however, specify higher standards for vehicles or equipment obtained for their own use.) Therefore, if a state specified a particular requirement for new tires that was different from one specified for the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the state law would be preempted. Moreover, a state law could be impliedly preempted if it frustrated the purposes of the Safety Act.

While we have not reviewed the specific text of the Puerto Rico bill, we do not believe the Safety Act is relevant to the particular concerns you raise in your letter. In order for a state law to be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), it would have to apply to new vehicles or equipment. However, you are concerned about state requirements for used tires, not new tires. A state law which applied to used vehicles or equipment could be impliedly preempted if it had the same practical effect as a state law for new vehicles/equipment that would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. @ 30103(b), i.e., the law in question had the practical effect of requiring vehicles/equipment to be designed in a certain manner. However, neither a general tax on imported used tir es nor a tread depth requirement that applied only to imported used tires would have any practical effect on the design of new tires.

Based on consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have therefore concluded that the proposed bill that you describe would not raise any preemption issues relevant to the importation of used tires. Since this opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to your concerns.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ID: elliswatts_6838

Mr. John E. Getz
Vice President, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, OH 45103




Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, are applicable to lift equipped trailers produced by your company. As explained below, FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 are applicable to lifts and trailers, as you have described.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle. The standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005.

In your letter, you stated that your company manufactures trailers equipped with mobile medical units (e.g. , MRI, PET, PET/CT units). You explained that all of these units have lifts that are used by patients on gurneys and wheelchairs as well as ambulatory patients. You further stated that patients are not transported in the trailers, and that when on location the trailers are essentially "fixed medical suites". You then stated that you believe these lifts would be considered "special purpose lifts," which as discussed in an October 1, 2004 final rule, are not subject to FMVSS No. 403 (69 FR 58843). You further stated that while the lifts installed by your company do not comply with specific requirements of FMVSS No. 403, the lifts as manufactured do provide for safe operation.

In the final rule in which FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established, we stated that individuals that rely on platform lifts should have assurances that lifts are as safe as possible and that these individuals should be protected from the risk associated with using unregulated equipment (67 FR 79418). Providing lift users with such assurances necessitates the uniformity of performance of the regulated lifts. This was in part the purpose for establishing uniform standards applicable to all platform lifts manufactured for installation on motor vehicles and to motor vehicles equipped with such lifts.

The lifts as you described would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Further, a motor vehicle, including a trailer, equipped with a lift as you described would be subject to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 404. In the October 2004 final rule, the agency did state that FMVSS No. 403 would not apply to what some commenters referred to as "special purpose lifts," e.g. , lifts designed specifically to transport gurneys or mobile incubators. We clarified that FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to lifts manufactured to assist individuals that rely on canes, wheelchairs, and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844). The lifts you described are manufactured to transport individuals relying on canes and wheelchairs. Therefore, the lifts would be subject to FMVSS No. 403.

In further support of your assertion that FMVSS No. 403 was not intended to apply to lifts as you described, you noted that the applicability section of FMVSS No. 403 (S3) states that the standard applies to platform lifts that are designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. You stated that because your trailers do not transport people, the individuals that rely on the platform lifts are not passengers. Therefore, you concluded that FMVSS No. 403 does not apply to the lifts manufactured by your company.

The issues associated with safe operation of platform lifts as persons enter and exit a vehicle are not dependent on whether the person is also transported in that vehicle to another location. As stated in S1 of FMVSS No. 403, the standard "specifies requirements for platform lifts used to assist persons with limited mobility in entering or leaving a vehicle". As such, platform lifts installed on trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and those trailers are subject to FMVSS No. 404.

Your letter continued that if FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were applicable to the lifts installed on the trailers manufactured by your company and to the trailers, compliance with several provisions of the standards would conflict with the operation of the trailer as a medical suite. For example, you noted that the audible threshold warning required for public use lifts (S6.1.5 of FMVSS No. 403) could unduly disturb elderly or sedated patients. You also informed Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that the visible threshold warning could prove to be an annoyance.

It is important to note that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 differentiate between public use lifts and private use lifts, and that different requirements apply based on a lifts designation. Under S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, lift-equipped buses, school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs. ) must be equipped with a lift that complies with the public lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403. All other vehicles, including trailers, must have a lift that complies with either the public or private use lift requirements. Several of the requirements with which you raised issue, including the audible threshold warning, are specific to public use lifts. The public use lift requirements would not apply to the case addressed here, as your trailers would not be required to be equipped with such lifts.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/4/05

ID: GF004373

Kelly A. Freeman, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Quantum Value Management, LLC
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 240
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This responds to your June 18, 2004, letter regarding a number of products assembled by subsidaries of your company. You believe that these products would not be classified as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As explained below, based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that two of the products are not motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. We are not taking a specific position with respect to the other products, but will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You asked about the following products:


• Three Manitex Boom Truck models of various tonnage (models 2601C, 2201 and 3500);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Remote, Telescoping Aerial Service Platform and Crane (Skyhoist model RTA120X);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC (f/k/a Phoenix) Arial Crane;
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Sponco Arial Ladder;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Rough Terrain Lift Truck;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Pull Scraper (model 417B); and,
• One Noble Construction Equipment Mobile Water Truck.

It is our opinion that two of the products, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper, are not motor vehicles. According to your letter, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck is designed to lift items such as brick, beams, building materials in uneven and rough surfaces, such as on construction sites where land has not been leveled. The Pull Scraper is used to clear and/or move earth on a large scale at a construction site. You also indicated that these products are transported to the job site and are not used on the public roads, even for relocation to a new work site. These products are not manufactured for use on the highways and are therefore not motor vehicles.

The other products appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. You indicated that these products are manufactured mainly for the construction industry and that although capable of being driven on public roads, such use is incidental and is for the purpose of moving the equipment from one worksite to another. You also stated that these products are typically left at a construction site for an extended period of time.

You further explained:

The boom trucks, telescoping aerial cranes and aerial ladders have outriggers that slide out horizontally and extend laterally from each side of the bed to stabilize the truck while the boom, crane or ladder (as the case may be) are in operation. They are manufactured for heavy-duty lifting and operation. The aerial platform and crane is a hydraulic crane with the capability of holding three people on its platform combined with heavy duty load-lifting. The boom trucks and aerial cranes are often used to lift large loads of brick, building trusses, steel beams, large signage, billboards and construction equipment, among other uses. . . . The water truck is used to decrease dust and assist in settling the earth, often following in the tracks of the pull scraper.

You also enclosed copies of a number of brochures.

We note that, as discussed in two enclosed letters, a March 21, 2001 letter to LeAnn Johnson-Koch, Esq. , and an October 20, 2003 letter to Michael Ogle, our current interpretations regarding mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As indicated earlier, your products (other than the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper) appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. Moreover, in view of the apparatus and their potential common uses, it appears that some of the products might travel to and from different short-term jobs. This would be different than the mobile construction equipment that has generally been the subject of our previous interpretations, which would commonly be used for extended periods at construction sites. We do not have detailed information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of the products you ask about. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. We would think, however, that some of these items may be motor vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571
d.8/16/04

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779

ID: nht78-2.17

DATE: 06/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugoff requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.

With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understanding that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.

As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two-compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.

Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess of three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that "it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower."

Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments or lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORTION May 4, 1978

Howard Dugoff Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dugoff:

Re: MVSS 108 - Requirements for Multiple Cavity Tail Lamps or Multiple Tail Lamps

The NHTSA provided interpretations of certain requirements of MVSS No. 108 as applied to photometric test requirements for multiple cavity and multiple lamp configurations in a letter of December 29, 1976. Our further review of MVSS No. 108 has uncovered two additional points pertaining to tail lamps on which we would appreciate your advice.

I. Photometric Requirements

MVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J585d which specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585d provides that multiple compartment lamps (or multiple lamps) may be used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp. Additionally, paragraph 3.1 describes how multiple compartments or multiple lamps are to be treated if they are in fact used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp.

Our understanding of these requirements is that the manufacturer has the option to use one or more compartments of a multi-compartment lamp (or one or more lamps of a multiple lamp system) to meet the photometric requirements specified. In cases where the manufacturer uses only one compartment of the lamp to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp, compartments or lamps not used are considered as "supplemental lamps" and are not required to meet test requirements except for the differential values discussed in the next paragraph.

The above is consistent with your letter of December 29, 1976 that stated that the NHTSA interprets MVSS No. 108 as requiring that the ratio of the turn signal lamp to the tail lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted when multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations are used. Such a requirement, of course, maintains the differentiation between the turn signal and the tail lamps.

The net result of the above as we interpret the regulation is that where there is a multiple compartment tail lamp (or where there are multiple tail lamps) it is necessary to measure the output of all tail lamps in determining the ratio between tail lamp intensity and turn signal intensity. However, it is permissible to use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp (or one lamp from a multiple lamp system) when considering compliance with the photometric requirements for tail lamps; other lamps or compartments would be merely "supplemental."

II. Multiple Lamps in Excess of Three

Section 3.1 of SAE J585d further provides that if one or more lamps of a multiple compartment lamp (or multiple lamps) is used to meet the prescribed photometric requirements for tail lamps the maximum candlepower for the combination of all the compartments (or lamps) must not exceed those set forth in Table 1 of SAE J585d for the corresponding number of lighted sections. The candlepower values specified in Table 1 are 15 for a one lighted section, 20 for two lighted sections, and 25 for three lighted sections. Use of lamps with four or more compartments or lamps are not prohibited. However, the Table does not contain a progression of maximum candlepower values for lamps with additional compartments beyond three. While not specified in the standard, in keeping with the progression of higher values in the Table for one, two, and three compartment lamps, i.e., 15, 20, and 25 candlepower, it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation of these provisions of MVSS No. 108 set forth in Section I and Section II above.

Thank you for your assistance.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations

ID: nht79-4.5

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat design having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.

Your "Figure 2" illustrates an unpadded depression at the center position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.

The seat design illustrated in "Figure 3" of your letter includes a "partition pipe" at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the "pipe" that is used and whether it is removable. If the "pipe" were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the "pipe" might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the "partition pipe" that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.

In "Figure 4," there is a padded "swelling" in the center seat position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the "swelling," it appears that the "swelling" slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the "swelling" is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the "swelling" is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discour age use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the "swelling" slants down to the seat back to create a "saddle effect," young children might be encouraged to use this center position.

To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that "Figure 2" in your letter illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of "designated seating position." It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your "Figure 4," for example, you could easily design the "swelling" to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

August 13, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to ask you for your interpretations concerning FMVSS "Designated Seating Position". Final Rule, issued on April 19, 1979 in the Federal Register.

At the NHTSA/Industry meeting in June, NHTSA said that if manufacturers have close questions as to whether or not there must be two or three designated seating positions in their particular configuration of the vehicle and seat, they may send NHTSA their letter concerning this matter. Therefore, we would like to as (Illegible Word) your interpretations as to whether there may be able to be only two designated seating positions in the seat configurations of our Questions (a), (b) and (c), which are derived from the basic seat (shown in Figure 1). Because we need to start designing our 1981 model seats, your prompt answers will be appreciated. Please treat our material as confidential.

Request withdrawn 8/31/79

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ENC.

cc: HUGH OATES. RALPH HITCHCOCK; GUY HUNTER

Questions

Do you consider the following seat configurations (a) (b) and (c) to be two designated seating positions which are derived from the basic seat (as shown in Figure 1)?

Figure 1

Note: There is a hard board covered with vinyl-chloride leather on the bottom of the depression with a 3.1 inch depth at the center of the seat cushion.

(Graphics omitted)

Note: There is a partition pipe at the center of the seat cushion.

Figure 3

Note: At the center of the seat cushion, there is a 3.9 inch swelling.

Figure 4

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 9759

Spectrum Engineering Group
1111 South Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410

Dear Sir/Madam:

This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16- passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as [A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR '571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a "mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR '571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in '108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206#217 d:6/28/94

ID: nht72-1.44

DATE: 10/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinrich von Wimmersperg, Development Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning the Ford "Tot-Guard" and your child restraint patents.

The consumer complaints that we have received on the Ford Tot-Guard have been complaints focussing on the fit of the device for minimum recommended size children. The comments relate both to the case with which small children may climb out of the device and slide under it, as well as to the vision restriction problem for the small child.

The Tot-Guard has proven to perform well in 30 mph frontal impacts with the three-year-old child dummy in our research programs, but can be improved in lateral protection capability and in performance with the 50-pound child dummy.

We have just completed a research program to develop new concepts in child restraints and will very shortly be making these designs available for any manufacturer who chooses to produce one of these advanced design restraints.

A copy of your letter will be placed in the public docket along with plans for the restraints developed on our child restraint development contract.

We are interested in reviewing and placing in the public docket copies of your designs for the infant car bed, which you mention, in hopes of stimulating the production of a crashworthy design for such a device.

We appreciate your letter and are looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

SINCERELY,

HEINRICH VON WIMMERSPERG DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER

OCTOBER 2, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

An article by John Thorner in the WASHINGTON POST on 20 July 1972, relative to the Consumers Union's report on children's car safety restraint systems, quoted you as stating that your agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, had found that children did not like the FORD "TOT-GUARD" and that therefore it would be difficult to get parents to use this restraint system.

As the owner of the basic patent used in the "TOT-GUARD", (Patent #3,232,665), I am naturally interested in your comments.

It is my impression that you are referring to the fact that the "TOT-GUARD" does have an extended front piece, covered by FORD's patent #3,424,497, which does interfere somewhat with the child's ability to see forward and may thus cause some children to object to being placed in the seat.

However from all dynamic tests about which I have heard, the FORD "TOT-GUARD" does provide maximum safety for children weighing up to 50 pounds in simulated crash conditions.

An editorial in the WASHINGTON POST of 6 July 1972, copy of which I am enclosing, did pose the question: "If some manufacturers can meet safety testing, why can't all of them?"

It is with this thought in mind that I would like to call your attention to the fact that FORD has a NON-EXCLUSIVE license on my patent and that I would be willing to license other manufacturers to avail themselves of its features on terms generally equivalent to the FORD agreement, involving a very nominal royalty.

I do feel that the small royalty should not deter them from using my patent to make their devices safer.

I have already noted that some attempts have been made to copy my system, but the endeavor to avoid infringement of my patent has not resulted in making their devices as safe as they would be if they had used my patent.

I realize that the NHTSA is not in a position to act as a "sales agent" for my patent but, in the mutual interest of promoting safety for children riding in cars, I do think it would be perfectly proper for you to at least call attention of manufacturers of child car restraint systems to the fact that my basic patent is available on a non-exclusive basis to any manufacturer for a very nominal royalty.

For your ready reference, I am enclosing a copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665 issued on 1 February 1966.

I am presently in the process of developing a new version of a children's seat based on my Patent #3,232,665, for children up to 50 pounds weight, having no restricted frontal vision, conveniently adaptable to different sizes of children and collapsible for easy storage and transportation.

Recently a patent was allowed to me which probably will be issued in January 1973. This is for a Safety Seat for Infants (old enough to be seated).

Further, I have just filed a Patent Application for a CAR BED for infants too young to be seated. It is based on a completely new principle, which provides maximum possible protection, equally safe for short trips or for longer traveling.

These three developments thus cover the complete range from the newborn baby to the 50 pound child.

Having had over 30 years background in the development of automotic firearms, covered by over 60 patents, I have, since 1955, been interested in the difficult problem of decelerating fast moving vehicle occupants in crashes without injury, a problem very similar to the problems to be solved in the design of ornaments. This work has resulted in my obtaining patents for an Automotive Safety Belt and for a shock absorbing Sun Vison, automatically covering the impact area of the windshield.

I would be happy to give you additional information regarding any of the above-mentioned matters if you are interested.

I know that you primary interest is in promoting, SAFETY for all people riding in cars and airplanes. It is my sincere belief that I have contributed something to this cause, and I got particular satisfaction from seeing a display of photos on the fifth Floor of the NASSIF Building in Washington showing a little girl sitting in a "TOT-GUARD" and also the car in which she was riding when it was rolled over in a side-impact collision, without injuring the girl. I presume you have seen this display. If not, I am enclosing a copy of the display.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Heinrich von Wimmersperg

[Enclosures Omitted]

1) Copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665