ID: nht88-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICL E ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: For SIPING mounted passenger car tires & light duty truck tires

Our model SP Saf-Tee siper is designed specifically for passenger and light duty tires which are mounted on wheels. The machine comes equipped with 12 blades along with the 4 lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32", a wrench for changing the lead screws and a file for sharpening the blades. The machine also comes standard with the Universal Passenger Adapter that will accommodate any wheels that have an opening of 1.75" up to 5 1/2" center hole. This machine has recently been redesigned and the lifting height of the tire has been lowered. It is fast, easy to operate and takes less than 3 minutes to mount, sipe and dismount the tire. The machine requires very little room and operates with 110 power and air.

This machine is an excellent profit builder for a tire operation or anyone who services automobiles and light duty vehicles. With the advent of high performance tires siping is becoming increasingly popular as a way to offer these tires traction and sta bility on wet and slippery surfaces, in addition to extending the tire life.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS: Height 38"

Width 27"

Side Width 34"

Weight 200lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

The concept of siping was first patented in the 1920s by John Sipe, who made a series of small cuts in his shoes to give him better traction. The idea is not new, but modern technology has developed siping machines to a high level of sophistication. Siping cannot be duplicated during manufacturing because it leaves a small void of rubber between the sipes. After a short period of time it becomes round and ineffective. Saf-Tee sipes cut into the tire, remove no rubber and the edges remain sharp an d gripping.

Saf-Tee siping machines cut slits at a 90 degrees angle across the tire tread, from 5/32" to 11/32" deep. These slits create thousands of sharp, gripping edges to provide extra traction, safer braking and actually extend the life of the tire as a res ult of dissipation of heat on highway travel. Siping across the tire gives the most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired braking vector.

RUNNING

Under normal road conditions: The ribs flex, responding to bumps and pits in the road, reducing shock to carcass and sidewalls. The tire runs cooler. Under wet, icy snow conditions: The ribs flex, the sharp, exposed edges cut through the hazard squeege eing the water out of the way.

ACCELERATION

Positive traction starts and acceleration in all weather conditions . . . spin on snow and ice is drastically reduced: The ribs separate and expose the sharp squeegee edges to cut to the road surface and channel the hazard out of the way. And . . . sipin g reduces tread wear, extending tire life.

BRAKING

Straight line braking: Without jacknifing, fishtailing or skids. The ribs separate, squeegeeing the hazard or road film away, giving the tire a sure-footed grip on the road surface. Siped tires greatly reduce heat buildup in braking and reduces tire we ar. Siped tires greatly reduce the distance needed to stop.

TESTS

Tests conducted by the National Safety Council on the performance of siped vs. unsiped tires on ice resulted in a 64% increase in breakaway traction and an increase of 28% spinning traction. In stopping distance tests, the reduction was from 200 feet to 155.6 feet -- a 22% improvement.

Major airline engineers tested the use of siping on ground equipment vehicles at O'Hare Field. They recorded a 25.72% increase in drawbar pull on a wet ramp flooded with glycol from deicer. They also show a 33.96% increase in braking under the same conditions. Tests were made before and after siping. As a result of these tests, they have saved thousands of dollars by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles.

The winning car in the Uniroyal One Lap of America auto rally was equipped with siped B. F. Goodrich tires. The 8,800 mile, eight-day endurance race began in Detroit, traveled through 28 states, and ended back at Detroit. Even though the driver enco untered near-blizzard conditions with snow and ice in the mountains, he had no trouble with traction. After the rally the siped tires were just like new.

Saf-Tee sipers employ a circular knife to make slits around the circumference of the tire. This causes the bottom of the sipe to form a scallop pattern, providing a varied depth and strength tie between adjoining sipes. Unlike the uniform depth cut of other siping processes, these scalloped "tie bars" reinforce tread components.

WHAT THEY SAID:

"At the present time we operate three retail stores all dealing in passenger and light duty vehicles. We have a siping machine in each of these stores and in the last twelve months our income has been $ 28,000 from siping."

-- Earl Springer, VP

Roemers Tire Centers, Missoula, MT

"On three sets of our logging tires siped at 11/32 deep the results were 40% less useage of chains, less abrasive damage to tread area and 7%-10% more mileage."

-- Larry Gifford, Service Rep.

Yokohama Tire Corporation

"Increased safety and reduced operating cost don't always go together but with Saf-Tee siped tires, they do. There is no way that I would go back to running without them."

-- Bob Beach

Beach Bus Service, Missoula, MT

"We experienced severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles. In an effort to improve this performance we siped tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests. We found we could negotiate 90% comers safely on ice at 25-30 miles per ho ur after siping where previously we could control the car only at 10 miles per hour. Braking was increased in all cases by 30%."

-- Lynn L. Keil City of Billings, Billings, MT

"The improved safety record of our 44 trucks has earned lower insurance rates."

-- Jim Palmer Trucking, Missoula, MT

"Our truck and trailer tires have 20% better wear after siping."

-- Holland Trans. Co., Fargo, ND

"The traction on ice/snow covered surfaces was much improved."

-- Wayne County Sheriff, Wooster, OH

"Since the tires were siped on our tank truck, we find that braking is better. Tires last longer too."

-- Terreberry Septic Service Ltd.

Port Colborne, Ontario

Call for more information, test results, testimonials, specifications and prices.

For SIPING mounted tires from 12" to 24.5"

The Model ST is our most popular siping machine because it is a multi-purpose unit -- it can sipe any tire from 12" to 24.5". with the adapters available. It's easy to run: operators can be trained in 15 minutes. It's fast: the process takes only 3 to 4 minutes per tire to perform. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used -- as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the ST, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/3 2", a file, and a wrench for switching lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . three to four minutes per tire.

* Versatile. Depth and width of sipe can be changed in seconds. Five depths: 5/32", 7/32", 9/32", 11/32" and 13/32". Two widths: 4 to the inch, 5 to the inch. Five angles: 90 degrees standard, and optional 45 degrees right or left, 60 degrees right o r left.

* Reliable. Machines have been in operation for over 15 years, trouble free. Siping does not affect the tire warranty of major tire manufacturers.

* Profitable. Permits servicing wide range of customers. Truckers buy their tires from dealers who offer siping services.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" at bottom of scalloped sipe to strengthen tread components.

* Marketing assistance. A factory-trained rep will set up the machine, instruct operators, and provide a complete promotional package to help sell siping services to your customers.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 42"

Width 34"

Side Width 36"

Weight 250 lbs.

Motor 1 HP,110(standard)

For HIGH VOLUME SIPING before mounting on wheels

The Model STE Siper is designed for use by a retreader, large retailer or wholesaler of tires for volume siping before tires are mounted on wheels. The STE is fast. The rim inflates in about five seconds after the operator positions the tire. The whol e process, including the siping, takes less than three minutes.

The Model STE is equipped with an expandable hub to handle rims to fit tire sizes from 13" to 24.5". Four different size rims are needed to accomodate these sizes -- one from 13" to 16", 17" to 20", 20" to 22.5" and 22.5" to 24.5". Rims are optional equ ipment to be selected depending on the tire sizes you most frequently sipe.

Twelve cutting blades are furnished with the STE, along with four lead screws for siping depths of 5/32", 7/32", 9/32" and 11/32" and a wrench for changing the lead screws.

FEATURES:

* Fast . . . entire siping process takes less than three minutes.

* Exclusive spiral cut creates "tie bars" that strengthen tread components to reduce chunking.

* 90 degrees angle cut across tire gives most traction opposite to the line of travel and desired baking vector.

* Sipes remain sharp and gripping -- can be accomplished only by siping after tire is manufactured.

* Profitable. You get repeat business from satisfied customers. You give them increased safety, reduced operating costs and better tire performance.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Height 45"

Width 42" Side Width 40"

Weight 450 lbs.

Motor 1 HP, 110 (standard)

Blades Available from Saf-Tee Siping & distributors

AVIATION GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOWS NEARLY 34% INCREASE IN PERFORMANCE AFTER SAF-TEE (registered) SIPING

This chart shows documented proof of the dramatic increase in draw bar pull that can be expected with the use of "Siped" tires. Siping can reduce the need for tire chains on all your vehicles. Chains are costly and dangerous especially on airport surfa ces. The outlawing of sludded tires made our need even greater. At United where I managed the ground equipment maintenance, we Siped all drive wheel tires, and also some front tires depending on application.

Thousands of dollars were saved by United at O'Hare by reducing the need for chains on all vehicles. They have been using Siped tires for 6 years. For economy and safety I see Siping as a must in all Airport operations.

C.N. HOSTERT

Equipment Maintenance Manager-Retired

O'Hare Field

United Airlines

TIRE SIPING TEST

GATOR TRACTOR 30500# AT 55

TEST ACCOMPLISHED USING DIGAL READOUT DYNAMOMETER ATTACHED TO REAR HITCH OF GATOR AND FRONT HITCH OF T800 WHICH WAS USED FOR LOAD. A. DRAWBAR PULL BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 14250 15000 5.26% TEST 2: 14200 15300 7.75% TEST 3: 14350 15800 10.10% AVG. 7.70% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 11800 13200 11.86% TEST 2: 11900 12800 7.56% TEST 3: 11650 12500 7.30% AVG. 8.91% WET RAMP GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 9750 12400 27.18% TEST 2: 9700 12160 25.36% TEST 3: 9550 11900 24.61% AVG. 25.72%B. BRAKING TEST ACCOMPLISHED STATIC BY LOCKING BRAKES ON GATOR AND DRAGGING WITH T800 BEFORE DRY CONCRETE RAMP SIPING AFTER SIPING % INCREASE TEST 1: 13000 13800 6.15% TEST 2: 13100 14000 6.87% TEST 3: 13200 13950 5.68% AVG. 6.23% WET RAMP (FLOODED WITH RUNNING WATER) TEST 1: 10700 13450 25.70% TEST 2: ? 13600 ? TEST 3: 11200 13900 24.11% AVG. 24.90% WET RAMP . GLYCOL (FLOODED WITH GLYCOL FROM DEICER) TEST 1: 8700 12270 41.03% TEST 2: 9500 12380 30.32% TEST 3: 9500 12400 30.53% AVG. 33.96%

Test conducted by United Airlines Engineers

ID: nht88-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frank S. Perkin -- Assistant General Counsel, The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/22/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Steven R. Taylor; 2/7/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H.J. Lindekugel

TEXT:

Frank. S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3155 West Big Beaver Road Box 2601 Troy, Michigan 48084

This responds to your letter expressing concern about a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heading and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example. and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, 1986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph:

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operation; bake a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tire; and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. Th e retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety A ct. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly pe rformed in repair shops.

You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated th at the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufactur e of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

As is indicated from the context of our September 22, 1986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such proce sses or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, 1973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, 1983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington. D.C.

Dear Ms Jones:

Reference is made to a letter you wrote to Steven Taylor dated Sept. 22, 1986, which was distributed by the TTMA to its members. A copy is enclosed for your convenience.

The Budd Company, as a wheel manufacturer. is seriously concerned by a comment in the next to last paragraph of your letter which could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding same.

While I am sure that this was not your intent, I believe it is appropriate to note that all of the things mentioned in your letter, i.e. straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard app licable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. See 29 CFR 1910. I further note that the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the DOT mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels.

The basis for all of this is that the manufacture of a steel truck wheel is a complex process involving carefully calculated cold forming of its components to produce the required strength, followed by controlled welding or other joining processes, I fol lowed again by elaborate testing to verify the integrity and efficacy of the final product. Any significant changes made later, especially involving bending, heating or welding carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

For the above reasons I hope you will consider advising anyone who may have received the referenced or any similar letter from your agency that such practices are not condoned and may be unlawful. Very truly yours

Frank S. Perkin Asst. General Counsel

cc: Truck Trailer Mfgrs Assn 1020 Princess St Alexandria Va 22314

ID: nht88-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Billy S. Peterson President Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. Product Liability-Testing-Certification at TRC of Ohio East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1987, with respect to positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your client has designed a vehicle in which the backup lamps and rea r reflex reflectors would be mounted on the deck lid, and you have asked whether there are any current or contemplated prohibitions that would preclude this design.

The lamps in question will be mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle as required by paragraph @4.3.1 of Standard No. 108, and the deck lid will be closed and the lamps and reflectors in full view under normal operating conditions. The visibility requirem ents of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 108 are predicated on the normal driving or closed deck lid position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with deck lids open or otherwise having the lamps and reflectors obscured by a particula r load on the vehicle is under the jurisdiction of the individual States, we do not anticipate rulemaking on this subject. Thus, this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 23, 1987 Administration National Highway Traffic Safety U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Our client, Hyundai Motor Company, has asked us to inquire regarding the positioning of rear mounted lamps and reflectors in accordance with FMVSS 108 for a new model currently in the final design stages. The rear lighting design for the new model provides for mounting some of the lighting on the bottom edge of the trunk lid, similar to a design currently used on the Audi 5000.

Although FMVSS 108 Table IV only calls for paired lamps and reflectors that are required on the rear to be at the same height on each side of the vertical centerline and "...as far apart as practicable," Hyundai would like to know if there are any curren t specific prohibitions or future anticipated changes that would preclude or limit the mounting of rear lamps or reflectors on the trunk lid. A schematic of the rear lighting configuration for the new model is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Billy S. Peterson President

BSP/PLS/plm

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October 17, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the 1989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulat ions. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine i s turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equip ment that the standard requires (S4.1.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our unders tanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustme nt positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other-hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108 DRIVER ADJUSTMENT OF PASSENGER CAR HEADLAMPS

Dear Ms. Jones:

Jaguar Cars Ltd. of Coventry, England, manufactures passenger cars for worldwide markets. For UK and European road vehicles of all types it will be required, by EEC Directive 76/756 (as amended) Paragraph 4.2.6, to fit a system for maintaining headlamp d ip beam (passing beam) vertical alignment. If this is not achieved by power operated suspension levelling, then either an automatic lamp-levelling system or a control operable from the driving seat must be provided.

Jaguar will fit an electrically operated lamp-levelling system, operable from the drivers seat, to the XJ-S model range on all cars for the United Kingdom and for Europe from Job 1 1989 model year. Jaguar would like to fit this system to cars supplied fo r the USA market.

Jaguar believes that this will not contravene or compromise any aspect of compliance with FMVSS 108 for the following reasons:

1. In a front-engine passenger car, the only adjustment required after the initial aim in the "driver only" condition is downward. (This may not be valid for rear engine cars or for heavy trucks).

2. The lamps will be compatible with the use of mechanical aimers as defined in FMVSS 108 and the sub-referenced SAE J.602. New semi-sealed light units for the USA models will conform with all applicable requirements of FMVSS 108. (Distinct conditions of light units will be used for U.S. and for Europe but they will be designed to fit commonised mountings and therefore will enable use to be made of the lamp levelling feature.)

3. The lamp mounting will be designed to meet the torque deflection test of SAE J.580.

4. A mechanical adjustment facility for manufacturing tolerances and an initial alignment will be fitted to each lamp and will be operable in the manner required by SAE J.580.

5. Subsequent to the initial alignment as defined in lighting inspection code SAE J.599, the only adjustment operable from the driving seat will be downward. Because the lamp provides both passing and driving beams this will enable the driver to adjust t he beams downward if necessitated by heavy rear seat, trunk, or trailer hitch loading. It is impossible to adjust the beams to a higher position than the datum setting by the operation of the control from the drivers seat.

Even if the driver does not use the control under the conditions outlined above, then the dazzle problem would never be worse than that created by conventionally mounted lamps. What the lamp levelling system would provide is the opportunity to eliminate dazzle that would otherwise occur.

6. Jaguar will explain in the owner literature the correct use of the control by the driver. Jaguar will also instruct dealers and servicing outlets of the need to zero the drivers control before checking or adjusting beam alignment.

For the foregoing reasons, Jaguar believe that no aspect of FMVSS 108 or the subreferenced SAE standards is contravened by this proposed installation. However, because of design and manufacturing leadtimes we request your confirmation that our interpreta tion is correct.

We believe we have explained all relevant features of the system but if further information or clarification is required, please contact me by telephone.

Sincerely,

C.D. Black CDB:as Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance, Product Development

ID: nht88-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Economic Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar G. Meyer Bureau of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Commerce 407 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your November 24, 1987 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from "old clothes and rags." Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cus hions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisf action of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials.

The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this a gency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge.

If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative vehi cle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 30 2. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a secti on 108(a)(2)(A). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Division of Economic Development

November 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a British prospect who is considering moving to Florida to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs. He will be using old clothes and rags as raw materials.

Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom of Your office, it is our understanding that Standard No. 302: Flammability of Interior Materials (Vol. 49, Section 571.302 Code of Federal Regulations) applies to seat cushions and seat backs.

We would appreciate if you could provide us with a legal interpretation addressing the prospect's question: Is it legal in the U.S. to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs using old clothes and rags as raw materials?

The prospect will visit Florida in early December. We would like to be ready with an answer at that time. Our telefax number is 904/487-1407. If you have any questions please call me at 904/487-2971.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Edgar G . Meyer Economist EGM/mw cc: Deidre Hom

ID: nht88-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: OUR CLIENT: UNITED TOOL & STAMPING, INC. MATTER: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter we sent to you on November 16, 1987. As of yet, we have received no response. I would appreciate at least an indication that you have received our letter and are working on developing a response, if you are not prepared to actually provide me with a response at this time.

Respectfully,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: L. T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L. P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM LT MITCHELL TO ERIKA JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 OR LESS, REF ENCLOSED LETTERS MR. JONES TYDINGS, THOMAS BUILT BUSES; NHTSA RESPONSE NOA-30; OCC-945; LETTER D ATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN JR TO JAMES TYDINGS; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217 - SECTION 5.2 "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This is a response to your letter asking whether it is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no.

You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus "for passenger comfort reasons." Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle saf ety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seatin g positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading.

You reason that because the term "designated seating position" is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR @571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Stan dard 217 and the definition of "designated seating position" in @571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which thi s reasoning might be applied.

Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter:

Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size maki ng three passengers on one 39" seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39" seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct?

This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses; by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that speci fy differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry "primary, prep rimary, or secondary school students" to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term "school bus" must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small c hildren to kindergarten or teenagers to high school.

Third, the definition of "designated seating position" and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat i n inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term "W") is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222.

For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therfore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to insta ll only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222.

For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your "Situation 2" is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. H owever, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual s afety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passeng er vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reas ons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. Stat e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pro per use of the manual safety belts reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic pr otection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection syst ems, and 4 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 1989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in c ompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle s afety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr . Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Am ericans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 18,1987

To: Ms. Nancy F. Miller, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

RE: Dr. Morgan has contracted my office regarding his wish to have passive restraining system presently installed in his car replaced with a 3-point seatbelt system.

Would you please review the attached and reply to the concerns/questions which this constituent has brought to my attention? This matter has also been referred to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

PLEASE RESPOND TO ME AT: 380 Alvarado Street Montrey, California 93940 (408) 649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

DATE: Dec. 8, 1987

STAFF MEMBER: KWC

CONSTITUENT'S NAME: Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

ADDRESS: 351-D Western Dr. Santa Cruz, CA 95060

PHONE: 408 / 429-4382 area code

INFORMATION REQUESTED: (be specific)

Dr. Morgan purchased a new car, and would like information on how he can get the passive seatbelt restraints replaced with the 3-point seatbelt system that was formerly used in pre-1988 cars.

Dr. Morgan states that he bought a 1987 1/2 Saab 900-S coupe. When he viewed the car, it had the 3-point seatbelt system. Dr. Morgan ordered the car, and by the time his car arrived, the new models with passive seatbelt restraints were being manufactured . Dr. Morgan has learned

that these new type of restraints are being ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Dr. Morgan feels that these passive restraints are hazardous and cumbersome. He wrote to the President of Saab, and was told that the company was only complying with a Federal order.

Therefore, Dr. Morgan would like to know what he must do in order to legally remove the passive restraints and have the 3-point seatbelt system he prefers installed.

ID: nht88-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: ROBERT DAUGHERTY -- QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER SAFETY REHAB SUNRISE MEDICAL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- N H T S A

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/06/88 TO ROBERT DAUGHERTY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 07/31/87 TO RICHARD J. MAHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES;

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Jones:

Safety Rehab Systems, Inc. (SRS) manufactures wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Our equipment is not only a means of transportation for these children, but also a positioning system.

Therapeutist throughout the country are starting to position these children as soon as possible, therefore a lot of kids are being transported to and from institutions for therapy by private car and school buses. I have included some literature for a better understanding of our product lines.

Safety Rehab believes that FMVS213 does not apply to durable medical products, (wheelchairs, positioning systems). Is this correct?

Safety Rehab's interest is to build safe equipment for transporting so all our equipment is crash tested at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and meets the head and knee excursion limits of 213.

Are there any transportation standards for handicapped children? Are there any standards for tie-down systems for school buses concerning handicapped children? Some schools equip buses with forward facing tie-downs and some tie-downs are side facing .

I would appreciate any information dealing with transporting the handicapped that you can provide.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1988

FROM: ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL; NHTSA; SUSAN SCHRUTH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-88, TO ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES, FROM ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STANDARDS 205 AND 212; ALSO ATTACHED -- LETTER DATED 1-14-85, TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- DIRECTOR , KALLMAN MARKETING; ; PATZIG TESTING LABORATORIES CO. INC., REPORT ON 1/4 INCH CLEAR, LAMINATED, SAFETY GLASS, AS 1 WITH SAFETY GROOVES FOR USE ANYWHERE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, DATED 10-30-85, LAB. NO. 219766

TEXT: On January 14, 1985 a letter was sent to the Chief Counsel's office regarding our windshield safety groove process. Included with that letter were reports from the Technical Research Centre of Finland on the grooves.

On March 1, 1985 we received a reply from your office that stated in general that the Finnish results did not address FMVSS 205 and that your office felt that testing needed to be completed to demonstrate the grooves' compliance with FMVSS 205.

On October 30, 1985 the Patzig Testing Laboratories, 3922 Delaware Ave., Des Moines, Iowa, 50313 (Lab No. 219766), issued a report on our grooving process stating that the grooves fully comply with ANSI Z26.1-1977 (Supp. Z26.1a-1980) and FMVSS No. 205 an d Canadian MVSS 205.

Since November of 1985 we have been marketing the grooves under the trademark of Tu-Grooves and have grooved over 14,000 vehicles since that time.

Currently we are having problems with States which require inspections on motor vehicles. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all given written approval to use Tu-Grooves within their states. New York has given us a verbal o.k. and we are waiting for the letter confirming that. However, Maryland and New Jersey are bringing up issues for approval which have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the grooves comply with FMVSS 205.

The MVMA sent a response to N.J. which raised a question as to whether or not we might be in violation of FMVSS 212. N.J. has temporarily rejected our request for approval to cut grooves in N.J. based upon this question from the MVMA on FMVSS 212.

Our process is an aftermarket process only. The grooves can only be installed on an existing windshield. We do not remove or install a windshield at any time during our process. I am quite sure that if FMVSS 212 was applicable to our process that your office would have notified us of this in its letter of March 1, 1985 and also requested that we conduct "crash tests" to show compliance with FMVSS 212.

We recognize that the USDOT does not approve any process, however we have performed the necessary tests for FMVSS 205 as suggested in your letter to us of March 1, 1985. As a matter of fact, the samples that we submitted for testing exceeded the normal depth of the grooves and the grooves went right off the ends of the samples. Under normal conditions the grooves are only .3 mm (3/10ths) deep and are usually just an inch or two longer than the blades with the ends tapered to the surface of the windshi eld.

We would appreciate a response from you as to whether the steps we have taken are sufficient to show compliance with FMVSS 205. Also, we would appreciate a response regarding the MVMA's question as to FMVSS 212. It is our understanding that we do not n eed to show compliance with this section.

Would it be possible for us to indicate somehow on the windshields in which we place safety grooves that we have shown compliance with FMVSS 205 of the USDOT, (ie on a clear sticker)?

Since we have a temporary rejection from the State of New Jersey which impedes our licensee's ability(s) to conduct business there, we would like to thank you in advance for your help and consideration in this matter.