ID: nht80-2.33

DATE: 05/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartmen, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 7 1980

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartmen, Braun & Halper Attorneys at Law 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1015 Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, asking several questions about Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc.

I would first like to correct an apparent misunderstanding you have about remarks made by Mr. Hitchcock in a meeting with you and Mr. Richard Hyde of Strolee. Mr. Hitchcock's remarks were to the effect that the agency encouraged beneficial innovations in child restraints and would be receptive to amending the standard to remove any restrictions to beneficial innovations. Any amendments to the standard would be made in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The agency does not engage in "ad hoc" rulemaking procedures.

The following are the responses to the fourteen questions you asked.

1. You asked how the minimum surface area requirements set in section 5.2.2 for the sides and back of child restraints are to be measured. You were specifically concerned about measuring "curved surfaces, without some guidelines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained." The area's measurements can be determined by positioning the appropriate test dummy in the restraint. The area within the dummy's outline projected directly rearward and the areas within the dummy's torso outline projected directly sideward must comply with the minimum surface area for the back and sides of the restraint.

2. You are correct that section S5.2.2.1(c) only requires a minimum radius of curvature and does not establish a minimum surface area for fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child. The agency encourages manufacturers to utilize designs with large surface areas at least equivalent to the shield designs incorporated in some current restraints.

3. You asked whether shoulder belt grommets are prohibited by section 5.2.3.2. In response to Strolee's petition for rulemaking on section 5.2.3.2, the agency has amended the section to permit the use of grommets that comply with the protrusion limitation requirements of section 5.2.4.

4. You raised a question about whether section 5.4.3.3 requires the use of a five-point belt system. The agency's intent was to allow the use of hybrid systems, which for example, might use upper torso restraints, a crotch strap and a shield instead of a lap belt. Thus, the agency provided in section 5.4.3.3(c) that a crotch strap must connect to the "lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso." The agency established the minimum radius of curvature requirements of section 5.2.2.1(c) to ensure that any surface used in place of a lap or other belt would not concentrate forces on a limited area of the child's body. The recent notice on the standard, appearing in the Federal Register of May 1, 1980, amends the standard to clarify section 5.4.3.3.

5. You objected to the buckle force requirements set in section 5.4.3.5 as being too high. The goal of that section is to prevent young children from opening the buckles while ensuring that adults can do so. As explained in the December 1979 final rule, section 5.4.3.4 is based on research done by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Institute. The research showed that young children could not open a buckle requiring a release force of 12 or more pounds, but could open buckles requiring a lower release force. That same research found that buckles requiring a release force greater than 20 pounds would be difficult for adult women to open. The agency is not aware of any research contradicting the Swedish study and no commenter to the docket submitted any data showing that the Swedish study is inaccurate.

6. You asked for an interpretation of the words "integral" and "position" as those words are used in section 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

The word "position" was also used in its common dictionary sense to mean put in place or arrange. Thus during the test, each movable surface will be put into place in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. The positioning requirements only apply to the arrangement of the movable surface and does not permit the attachment of any belts that are not an integral part of the movable surface.

7. You stated section 6.1.2.4 is inconsistent with S6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 because 6.1.2.4 supposedly allows attachment of the restraint system's belts, while sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 do not allow belts to be attached that are not an integral part of a fixed or movable surface.

Your interpretation is not correct. Section 6.1.2.4 sets specifications for tightening the restraint system's belts, prior to the sled test. However, both sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 provide that the belt adjustment requirements of section 6.1.2.4 are not to apply to belts that are not an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.

8. You asked how the agency defined "target point" as that term is used in section 5.1.3.2. Section 5.1.3.2 requires that "no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head" shall pass through two specified planes during the sled test. The agency used the term "target point" to refer to the center of the target on the side of the test dummy's head. The location of the target is specified in the engineering drawing incorporated in Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies, Subpart C.

9. You asked whether the standard establishes strength specifications for belts. Section 5.4 establishes performance requirements that the belt systems used in child restraint systems must meet. The section does not establish specific breaking strengths for the belts, other than the requirement in section 5.4.1(a) that after being subjected to "the abrasion requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, the belts must have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraided webbing...." Of course, belts which are to be attached during testing must not break during the test if the effect of the breakage is to cause a violation of section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.

10. You expressed concern about "the difficulty in running quality control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) only authorizes the agency to issue requirements that are as performance oriented as possible. The Act places responsibility on a manufacturer to devise its own specifications which will ensure that its product performs as required.

11. You asked our opinion whether the Waterbury buckle complies with standard No. 213. The agency does not issue opinions as to whether a particular design does or does not comply with the requirements of a standard. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers must certify that they comply with all applicable federal standards. 12. We have answered your questions concerning the use of soft foam armrests or trays in our earlier letter of April 17, 1980.

13. You asked whether "a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some other portion of the car seat must comply with the tension (sic) requirements of section 5.4.3.5. That section provides that "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall" meet specified buckle release requirements. Since a crotch strap is used in a child restraint system to restrain the child, a buckle used with the crotch strap must comply with the requirements of section 5.4.3.5.

14. You raised a question about the safety of buckles that "do not snap or latch, but rather require the turn of a knob to seal them together." Your concern in that the knob may not be fully turned and thus the buckle may not be fully latched. Any buckle, regardless of its specific design must comply with the release requirements of section 5.4.3.5. In the preamble to the December 1979 final rule, the agency encouraged manufacturers to use push button buckles, similar to those used in automobile belts, so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies. Use of push button buckles would also solve the potential problems of incomplete latching that may be associated with knob-type buckles.

If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Department of Transportation 100 7th Street, S. W., Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc.

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This letter will serve to confirm some of the items that were discussed between Mr. Hyde and me, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee"), and Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Radovitch, Dr. Burgett and you in our meeting of last week.

The following summation is presented to you in numerical order, but the relative importance of the item is not to be inferred from its location on the list.

Throughout the meeting we expressed our concern with the vagueness of certain areas of the standard. In addition, we expressed our concern regarding the manner in which this standard will be administered. This concern was further reinforced by our discussion during the first hour with Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that he would be receptive to any new ideas, and that if the Department felt the idea had merit the standard could be amended or interpreted to reflect these developments. Such an approach, we submit, is contrary to law and places the companies in the industry at a severe competitive disadvantage with each other. While Strolee is earnestly in favor of all developments that will truly enhance child safety, it feels that any developments must be adequately tested, to insure their safety, and must conform to Standard No. 213. If the standard is to be changed, then adequate notice should be given to all manufacturers, adequate time to comment should be given, and the standards duly adopted and published in the Federal Register citing realistic compliance time for the benefit of all manufacturers in the industry. To have "ad hoc" approval would, we feel, be both contrary to law and unfair to the manufacturers who have attempted in good faith to comply with the wording of the standard.

We expressed a concern to you regarding, for example, Section 5.4.3.3, which clearly states that if the child restraint system has belts, it shall have the three types of belts, to wit: shoulder belts, a lap belt and a crotch strap, the latter only if the seating system is recommended for children over twenty pounds. We objected to the Department giving its approval to a car seat having less than this number of belts since the standard expressly requires this. Our reasoning related to the fact that a manufacturer, be it Strolee or some other manufacturer, who relied upon the clear and specific requirements of this section of the standard in designing its car seat could be faced with a situation where a competitive car seat does not contain the required number of belts and was designed in a different manner. The company attempting to comply with the standard could, thus, be discriminated against in favor of another manufacturer who did not comply with this section of the standard. The obvious unfairness of this result, not to mention the questionable legality of such a procedure with amorphous standards, is not subject to dispute. This matter is considered from a different standpoint in the discussion that follows.

One final introductory point, both Mr. Hyde and I expressed our concern with the enforcement date of the new standard. In the realistic world of business, seats must be designed and tested, molds made and tooling prepared for production and then the seats must be retested. Our best estimate is that will take at least six months for the mold alone. Mr. Hyde has presented a letter to you setting forth a realistic time frame. We would earnestly request that the standards not become effective until March 1, 1981. In this regard, if the Department is going to allow amendments to the standard, or interpretations to the standard, to remove some of the ambiguities, we would request that a similar time consideration should be given after the interpretation or the amendment. For example, if Strolee has designed a car seat based upon three types of straps clearly mandated by Section 5.4.3.3 and the Departmental interpretation amends or interprets its standards to say that only two types of straps are required, then in the interest of fairness, we feel sufficient time should be given to allow us to retool, retest and take whatever steps are necessary to bring our seat into conformity with the amended standard. If such is not allowed, as I pointed out to you my client will be at a severe disadvantage or, in the alternative some other manufacturer will be at a severe disadvantage concerning their car seat vis-a-vis the Strolee seat.

In regard to the specific problems that we see with the regulations, while I am aware that the regulations have become final and the time for comment has expired, the following reflects some of the matters that we discussed and some of our concerns:

1) Section 5.2.2. This section fails to indicate how the dimensions of 85 square inches, 24 square inches and 48 square inches are to be measured. When dealing with curved surfaces, without some guide lines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained. It was suggested that, as to the back areas, you were talking about the area directly behind the dummy.

2) Section 5.2.2.1(c). This section requires a radius of curvature of not less than three inches. We inquired as to a minimum area. Although it is certainly not Strolee's intent, or any other manufacturer of which we are aware, it is conceivable that a one-half inch metal bar with a radius of curvature of not less than three inches would pass this standard. Mr. Hitchcock stated that generally a one and one-half inch width, similar to the belt width requirements, would be acceptable, but such does not appear from the regulations.

3) Section 5.2.3.2. It was pointed out to you that this section would preclude the use of a shoulder harness which is inserted through the back of the shell, since the areas where the shoulder strap is inserted would not contain the required material. The Strolee system used grommets. You indicated to us that the grommets will be acceptable provided they comply with the protrusion limitation of Section 5.2.4.

4) Section 5.4.3.3. You indicated to us that there was no reason that a manufacturer cannot use the nonbelt substitute for the required three belt system. You indicated that you would interpret it with a ruling. In this connection, I have already expressed our objection to this type of procedure wherein a ruling would be squarely contrary to the express language of the standard.

5) Section 5.4.35. We raised some objection to the twelve pound--twenty pound standard. Mr. Hyde pointed out the experience that Strolee has had when the tension to release the belt is too tight (Strolee's buckle release force is in the eight pound range). Mr. Radovitch indicated that these standards were adopted from a Swedish study without tests being made by your department. Mr. Hyde pointed out that if the tension is too great, the mother will not use the belt buckle system, and this would not be in the best interest of the child. Strolee's experience has been some complaints by women to an eight pound buckle being difficult to use. If the twelve to twenty pound standard is mandatory, there would be substantial difficulty in removing a child from the car seat under emergency circumstances. We question if there has been any investigation as to the validity of the Swedish study.

6) Sections 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). The question of what is meant by the use of the words "integral part of the system". After substantial discussion, we were advised that the Department considered it as an integral part if it could not be removed without the use of tools. That is, if the belts could be removed by hand, they would not be considered an integral part of the fixed or moveable surface.

We also asked what was meant by the word "position" wherein the standard mandates that you position each moveable surface in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. Does this mean that belts can be attached? I feel this was not clarified or resolved.

7) Section 6.1.2.4. It was pointed out to you an inconsistency of this section with Sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 3.2. Section 6.1.2.4 providing that if the child seat is provided with shoulder and pelvic belts they shall be adjusted accordingly, yet Tests Configuration II precludes the use of such belts.

8) Section 5.1.3.2. We asked for a definition of the words "target point" and you indicated that this was the center point of the target area, not a target area of a fixed diameter.

9) Section 5.4. We asked for confirmation as to strength specification on the belts and hardware. You indicated that there were no specifications, just performance requirements and a minimum width of not less than one and one-half inches on the belts. This included any positioning belt.

10) Section 6.2. We pointed out to you the difficulty in running quality control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards. It was impractical, Mr. Hyde stated, to run sled tests on each group of buckles received and while another test might be devised, the realiability of such other test could not be totally insured.

11) We asked your opinion as to whether the Waterbury buckle complies with your requirements. We did not resolve this.

12) We asked your opinion concerning a soft foam arm rest or tray in front of the car seat, something that would contribute play value but obviously having no safety function. We would appreciate your studied opinion on this. Strolee feels such an arm rest is most important to keep the child happy in the car seat.

13) In regard to the crotch strap, we requested an interpretation as to whether a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some other portion of the car seat must comply with the tension requirements of Section 5.4.3.5. We expressed our concern that a child might be able to reach the crotch strap and undo it if the tension requirements were not met.

14) In regard to the buckle system, we expressed our concern as to buckles that did not snap or latch, but rather required the turn of a knob to seal them together. What happens if the knob was not fully turned, i.e., if a bolt restraint was turned half way so that the buckle was not fully latched. You indicated to us that you had not considered that problem.

In addition to the foregoing specifics, we expressed our general concern with this standard and the difficulty of complying with it. We pointed out to you that Strolee is and always has been a conscientious manufacturer of quality products with safety first in mind and has a record for producing a reliable seat without safety complaints. For over twenty-five years, Strolee has studied the buying habits of parents, and more importantly, safety for infants. Thus, their strong belief that this new standard will reduce car seat usage and, most regretably, actually reduces the protection of the infant.

While I did not discuss it with you, I think you should bear in mind that any client, the largest manufacturer of juvenile car seats, has never been sued or had a claim made for even one child that was ever injured in any automobile accident. To the contrary, its files are replete with letters from parents praising Strolee for saving their child from serious injury or worse, in accidents of unbelievable force. In this day and age where individuals are all too willing to file claims and to sue for accidents, the record of Strolee in producing a safety device for children, I believe, is unparalleled. It is this record which makes the new standards so punitive to my client and to parents and their infants. The cost, both in dollars and cents, and in executive time, to change a product where no need has been shown to exist is particularly onerous. Indeed, when one reflects that the added costs necessitated by the changes will result in a higher cost to the consumer, and a subsequent diminution in demand, the new standard seems incongruous.

In conclusion, we request that all ambiguities, to the extent they can be ascertained at the present time, be resolved, that the effective date of the regulations be postponed to March 1, 1981, and if amendments are made to the standard, that the effective date be delayed a proportionately greater length of time. We also request that any amendments be made subject to comment and review by appropriately qualified individuals in the private sector and we request that no competitive advantage be granted to anyone in the industry by virtue of any interpretation of existing standard without due process of law.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: aiam3964

Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral part of the movable shield and may be attached during test configuration II.; Your client, Collier- Keyworth, has designed a child restraint tha integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.; I suggest, however, that Collier- Keyworth incorporate into th restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.; In the late 1970's, there were several child restraint designs whic had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restrain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.; When amended Standard No. 213 was being promulgated, the agency decide to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.; Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that sectio S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.; During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shield to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.; The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loade and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, sas would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a 'warning' label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4704

"Dear Mr. Cooper: This responds to your letter asking this agency t consider a problem your company faces with respect to Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, you asked how some of your buses could be certified as complying with the emergency exit labeling requirements set forth in Standard 217 for buses other than school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. Paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 provides that, in buses other than school buses, each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation 'Emergency Exit' followed by concise operating instructions, describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. The purpose of this requirement is to identify for bus occupants the location and explain the use of specially-installed emergency exits. As I understand your letter, you have no difficulties providing appropriate instructions in the specified location. Paragraph S5.5.1 continues with the following language: When a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label...that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space. The terms 'adjacent seat' and 'occupant space' are defined in S4 of Standard 217 as follows: 'Adjacent seat' means a designated seating position located so that some portion of its occupant space is not more than 10 inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. 'Occupant space' means the space directly above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the seat faces. You stated that many of your buses have seats that face the aisle and that back up against windows designated as emergency exits. These aisle-facing seats are 'adjacent seats' with respect to the emergency exits. The release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the 'occupant space' for these aisle-facing seats, since the release mechanisms are behind, not above, these seats. You enclosed a group of photographs to further illustrate this situation. Since the release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the occupant space of these adjacent aisle-facing seats, paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 requires a label indicating the location of the release mechanism for the emergency exit to be placed within the occupant space for these seats. You have noted that the occupant space for these seats does not include any place to which this label could be attached. The nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the aisle-facing seats face is the aisle facing seat on the opposite side of the bus. There are no intervening objects other than narrow vertical stanchions in the center of the aisle. Additionally, you suggested that placing the label on the floor or ceiling of the bus would not serve the purposes of this requirement, since those locations would not be readily visible to the seated occupant in an emergency situation. In response to your letter, we have carefully considered the labeling requirements of S5.5.1 as they apply to aisle-facing seats in front of windows that serve as emergency exits. The final rule adopting this additional labeling requirement explained that NHTSA was concerned that an occupant of an adjacent seat might hinder egress through an emergency exit if the occupant did not know how to use the emergency exit. See 37 FR 9394, at 9395, May 10, 1972. In instances in which the release mechanism itself is not within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label within the occupant space directing the occupant of the seat to the emergency exit instructions will help reduce the likelihood that the occupants would inadvertently obstruct egress through the emergency exits. NHTSA's goal of minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits is equally applicable to forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. However, the means of achieving that goal (i.e., placing a label within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, if the release mechanism is not within that occupant space) may not be equally successful for forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. The agency did not focus upon aisle-facing seats when it adopted this labeling requirement. With respect to forward-facing seats, it is relatively simple to locate a label within the occupant space that will be readily visible both to seated occupants and to persons standing in the aisle, as required by S5.5.2. However, with respect to aisle-facing seats, there may not be any location within the occupant space of such seats where a label could be placed so that the label would be visible to occupants of the seat and to persons standing in the aisle. If the labels were not visible in an emergency, such labels would not further NHTSA's goal of minimizing inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits. Accordingly, we plan to issue a notice proposing to amend and clarify the requirements of S5.5.1 of Standard 217 as they apply to aisle-facing seats. Please note that, unless and until a final rule amending S5.5.1 of Standard 217 becomes effective, the current requirements of S5.5.1 remain in effect for aisle-facing seats. However, the agency believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to enforce the requirement in S5.5.1 that additional information be labeled within the occupant space of aisle-facing seats given the uncertainty that such labels will serve the purpose for which the labeling requirements were established, as noted above. Accordingly, until the agency makes a final decision on the proposed rulemaking mentioned above, NHTSA will not take any enforcement actions against bus manufacturers that do not place a label indicating the location of the nearest emergency exit release mechanism within the occupant space of adjacent aisle-facing seats. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0739

Dear Mr. Rosner: This is in reply to your letter o May 25, 1972, asking whether you, a a selling dealer, may install steel-belted radial ply tires in an 8-passenger Checker taxicab. You state that the vehicle is normally delivered to you with tires having the 'O' load range.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110, cop enclosed) requires each passenger car to be equipped at the time of sale to a first purchaser with tires if certain minimum load carrying capacity, based on the weight of the vehicle. Any steel-belted radial ply tire that meets these load carrying requirements with respect to your vehicles may be installed by a selling dealer.; Radial tires of similar of Related sizes, but of different manufacture however, may have different load ratings. We suggest, therefore, that you contact Checker Motor Corporation for their recommendations as to which radial ply tires may be installs on these vehicles without adversely affecting the vehicle's conformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson

ID: aiam2398

Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you as whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*.; Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided i accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits provided in accordance with Standard No. 217' and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements os S4(b) of Standard No. 220.; You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating th provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0886

Dear Mr. Mann: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1972, in which yo enclose a brochure describing your feed mover as requested by Mr. Andrew Moss, of my staff.; An examination of the material submitted would seem to indicate tha your classification of the feed mover as farm machinery is valid. We would not, therefore, consider it to be a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) based on the information furnished.; In addition to the Act (PL 89-563) and 19 C.F.R. 12.80, that you hav requested, we are also enclosing Part 571 (formerly Part 371) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Of particular interest to you would be the interpretations on mini- bikes that set forth criteria to assist manufacturers in classifying their products insofar as off-road use is concerned.; If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2399

Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you as whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*.; Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided i accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits 'provided in accordance with Standard No. 217' and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.; You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating th provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3649

Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott o this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses 'U.S.A. DOT' and 'JAPAN DOT', rspectively (sic).; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words 'Japan DOT' in your Japanese- manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word 'Japan' at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the 'DOT' symbol.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0804

Dear Mr. Matthews: This is in response to your letter of July 5, 1972, requesting a opinion as to how manufacturers may take into account a vehicle's speed capability in establishing GAWR.; The Certification regulations do not specify particular speed criteri for establishing weight ratings. As a minimum, however, we believe the speed chosen should reflect the maximum speed at which it is reasonable to expect the vehicle to be driven. In the case where a vehicle is subject to some low-speed uses, such as seasonal sue as a snow plow, we believe the figure on the certification label should be based on that use of the vehicle in which its expected speed is greatest. The regulations do not provide for variable ratings based on speed.; Finally, you ask whether cautionary labels dealing with GAWR and GVW figures may be installed in the cab. The NHTSA does not object to the use of such labels. They may be used, as appropriate, to indicate permissible use of higher loads in low-speed applications.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0981

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in further response to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Mrs Virginia Knauer, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, *Warning Devices*.; As you already know from Mr. E.T. Driver's letter of January 24, 1973 and previous correspondence from my office and the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the standard as an equipment item that would be suitable for use in all types of vehicles, from trucks to passenger cars.; In issuing the standard, we were concerned with the great variety o devices presently available, which can create confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. We were also concerned with wind stability, and your comments were most useful in our consideration of this aspect of the requirements. FMVSS No. 125 is an attempt to achieve a standardized device having a proper balance of the factors affecting shape, size, cost, visibility, wind stability and weight. These are minimum standards and the manufacture and sale of devices that exceed these requirements is not prohibited.; Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;