ID: nht68-3.44

DATE: 07/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1968, in which you requested clarification of the term "optically combined" as applied to motor vehicle lights.

"Optically combined" in this context means that the same lens area is used for more than one function such as tail and stop lights or stop and turn signal lights or tail, stop and turn signal lights. The normal means used to accomplish this "optically combined" lamp has been to incorporate a single dual-filament bulb with a reflector and lens.

Since the design of your Toyota Crown combination stop, tail and turn signal lamp is such that a different part of the lamp area is used for the turn signal lamp, we do not interpret it to be optically combined with the tail and stop lamp.

The concurrence of the above interpretation with yours and that of the California Highway Patrol should not be construed to be an approval of your design. The results of recent research on lighting and signaling reviewed by this Bureau indicate that signal lights should be separated 4 1/2 to 5 inches minimum (centerline to centerline separation.) Although no dimensions are specified on your drawing it appears to be approximately full scale with a separation distance of 2 1/2 inches between the stop and turn signal lamps. The steady-burning stop lamp may therefore "wash out" or significantly reduce the effectiveness on the turn signal lamp. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require a minimum separation distance between signal lights; however, upon completion of our present research contracts on rear lighting and signaling, we may consider such a requirement in the future.

ID: nht78-3.23

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In your first question, you paraphrase the requirements of S5.3.3 concerning emergency exit force requirements and release motion and ask whether your understanding of the section is correct. Your interpretations of the standard's requirements are accurate.

Second, you enclosed photographs of a manufacturer's rear emergency door release mechanism and asked whether it complies with the standard's requirements. The force release mechanism shown in the pictures does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. The release mechanism is not located in the high force access region as required by the standard, and the motion required for release of the exit is not upward as required by paragraph S5.3.3

Finally, you asked whether your enclosed copy of Standard No. 217 which includes paragraph S5.2.3.1 is up-to-date. The answer to your question is yes. You have been confused by paragraph S5.2.3.1 because it states that a bus must have, at a minimum, one rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push-out window. The requirement for one rear emergency door does not preclude a schoolbus with a 10,000 pound GVWR or less from using two (double) rear emergency doors. Paragraph S5.4.2.2 states ". . . the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . ." (Emphasis added). The use of the term "doors" in paragraph S5.4.2.2 indicates that double doors are permitted.

ID: aiam0045

Dear Mr. Diehl: #In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, an your letter of January 9, 1968, your requested: #>>>'...an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on *one sidewall*, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.'<<< #This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall. #Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0083

Dear Mr. Farmer: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.; The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam1988

Dear Mr. Joyce:#This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whethe S5.3 of Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, requires that the brake fluid level warning system specified by S5.3.1 be instantaneous when the brake fluid level reaches the condition described in S5.3.1(b).#The answer to your question if no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognizes that a minimal interval between the occurrence of the specified condition and the appearance of the required signal is a physical fact. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of a similar require- ment of Standard No. 105-75 for your information. In the case of the brake fluid level indicator, a time interval that is insignificant with respect to the time required to respond to the signal would be permissible.#Sincerely,Frank A. Berndt,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1486

Dear Mr. Baskin: #This is in reply to your letter of March 21 and Apri 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a 'blemish' must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards. #There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and treadwear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires. #We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant chief Counsel;

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: 12292.drn

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
United States Senate
1835 Assembly Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Senator Hollings:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John Horsley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since you request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations, Mr. Horsley has asked me to respond.

Your letter informs us that your constituent, Mr. Pritchard, wishes to disable a "dashboard warning light" on his motor vehicle. Mr. Wyeth Ruthven of your Columbia office has informed my staff that Mr. Pritchard owns a model year 1992 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. After the vehicle is driven 60,000 miles, a light actuates on the front dashboard, as a reminder that the vehicle should undergo a maintenance inspection. Mr. Pritchard apparently wishes to disable the maintenance inspection reminder display light.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles. None of our standards, however, regulates a maintenance inspection reminder display. Thus, our requirements do not restrict anyone from disabling the display or arranging with a commercial business to disable it. We would like to note, however, that certain other displays, such as an air bag readiness indicator, are required by our safety standards and thus could not be disabled by a commercial business. In addition, state laws may restrict the changes a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. Mr. Pritchard might want to contact South Carolina state officials for information on that issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any other information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:8/29/96

ID: nht94-1.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Rowe Manufacturing

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GLAD-GRIP

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe (A42; Std. 106)

TEXT:

The Glad-Grip started as a useful device to help connect and disconnect the hydraulic hoses on farm implements. This device is called the Hydra-Grip. As time passed and the Hydra-Grip became better known, several truckers saw the Hydra-Grip and thought they would be an asset on the air hoses of semi truck tractors. There is nothing on the air hoses to get a grip on except the hose itself or the spring below the glad hand. Especially during cold weather when drivers twist the glad hand loose from its mating coupler half, the hose would be bent at a severe angle causing the hose to either break or develop a leak. This problem is greatly reduced by installing the Glad-Grip, a very durable and simple handle. Safety is also a factor as the operator's hand is not in contact with the air hose itself.

The Glad-Grip has a machined steel core designed and tested to withstand a minimum of 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure, far in excess of the pressure on the air line system. The center bore of the core exceeds DOT requirements of at least 66% of the air l ine inside diameter. The threads, both male and female, are cut to American National Standard Institute one half inch NPTF threads.

It is the desire of Rowe Manufacturing to provide a safe and economical device for the trucking industry. To help minimize down time and costly repairs associated with broken hoses. At the same time we want to abide by all DOT standards and regulations .

Thank you for your consideration of our product. If you have any questions regarding our product feel free to call.

ID: nht95-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1995

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

TO: David T. Holland -- President, Europa International, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/24/95 LETTER FROM DAVID T. HOLLAND TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specificat ion MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 . . . . can count these vehicles toward the required percentage."

Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gr oss vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements.

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