ID: nht73-6.19

DATE: 05/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By petition for rulemaking dated November 15, 1973, the Ford Motor Company requested an amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with respect to the strength required of the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. After considering the merits of the requested amendment, we have decided to deny your petition.

As stated in your petition, the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 assembly are presently subject to two strength requirements under Standard 210. Section S4.2.2 provides that, when tested in conjunction with the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 3,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly. Section S4.2.1 provides that, when tested separately from the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 5,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly.

It is Ford's position that the 5,000 pound requirement of S4.2.1 was intended to be applicable to anchorages used with Type 2 assemblies having detachable shoulder belts, and that it was not intended for use with integral Type 2 assemblies. Although the NHTSA would agree that the most widely used Type 2 assembly at the time of the standard's adoption had a detachable shoulder belt, the agency does not agree that the 5,000 pound requirement should be limited to anchorages used with such belts.

The 1974 model year will be the first in which integral Type 2 belts are installed in all passenger cars. We anticipate that a measurable percentage of persons riding in cars with the new belts will somehow avoid using the shoulder belt, thereby placing

the lap belt under the same potential stress as any other lap belt when used by itself. In light of this possibility, and in consideration of the fact that keeping the pelvic anchorage force at the currently required level of 5,000 pounds will not impose additional manufacturing costs on manufacturers, we do not consider it advisable to grant the requested amendment at this time.

The petition of Ford Motor Company for an amendment of S4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 and for a complementary amendment to the test procedures of S5.1 of the standard is therefore denied.

November 15, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company, with offices at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121, as a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles, hereby submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (hereinafter "the Standard"). This Petition is filed pursuant to Section 553.31 of the procedural rules of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The purpose of this Petition is to request an amendment to S4.2.1 and S5.1 of the Standard that would eliminate the requirement of applying a 5000-pound force to the anchorages of the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a non-detachable upper torso portion. Sections S4.2.2 and S5.2 of the Standard adequately cover the anchorage loading for such a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This 5000-pound test criteria was developed originally for seat belt restraint systems that were independent of upper torso restraints and is still applicable to such systems as well as those that include a detachable upper torso belt system.

Ford Motor Company plans to incorporate non-detachable upper torso straps as required by S4.1.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 in its 1974 model vehicles. The present requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 cause the restraint system to be dismantled before it can be tested, resulting in redundant and unnecssary tests and, therefore, are not practicable for this type of restraint system.

Ford test and development programs for these vehicles are now at that point where prototype bodies incorporating 1974 restraint system component designs are available for tests according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210 demonstration procedures to determine that design levels are appropriate for production tooling. We urge your prompt attention to this matter to assure that our current product programs are not affected.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold

Director, Automotive Safety Office

ID: nht76-4.32

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Police - Detroit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with "push bumpers" and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.

Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, establishes requirements for the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit "push bumpers" and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.

You also asked whether the police department or a business could install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1). However, @ 108 (a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipment depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a "motor vehicle repair business", it can only install the "push bumpers" and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines "motor vehicle repair business" as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I have underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS 226 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.

SINCERELY, Department of Police Detroit, Michigan

Hugh Oates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our phone conversation on November 1, 1976, the Equipment Control Section of Detroit's Police Department has experienced a degree of reluctance by the auto manufacturers in providing police vehicles with specialized equipment. The purpose of this communique is to resolve the following two questions:

(1) The auto manufacturers state that per regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they are unable to equip police vehicles with a special "push bumper". To more clearly delinate this concern, enclosed please find several photographs of the "push bumpers" and how they are attached to the car's bumper system. The Detroit Police Department prefers to order vehicles from the manufacturers with the "push bumper" attached. In furtherance of this desire, a ruling by your administration allowing the manufacturers to construct police vehicles with "push bumpers" and sell same to our department, would clearly alleviate this dilemma.

(2) The auto manufacturers also state that they cannot sell vehicles equipped with a bullet proof shield located between the front and rear seating compartments. My research uncovered no federal statute or regulation prohibiting this. Your advise on this matter would clear any ambiguity.

In responding to the above requests, assuming the auto companies could not lawfully sell us police vehicles with any of the above special equipment, I would appreciate you probing the possibility of the City installing such equipment subsequent to our purchasing the vehicles, or having a private business perform these tasks. Please note that both the "push bumper" and bullet proof shield are removed from the vehicle when same is later sold at public auction.

If further information is needed, please feel at liberty to call me (313-224-4426).

JOSEPH E. PAPELIAN Legal Advisor Section

cc: INSPECTOR JOHN DOMM

ID: nht92-5.28

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/10/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7401)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 10,1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL). Your letter was occasioned by mine of April 27, 1992, with respect to the design presented in your letter of April 3.

To summarize our earlier correspondence, Porsche wishes to install a CHMSL on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended CHMSL meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Because the CHMSL on the Carerra would not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, we informed you that this design would not conform to Standard No. 108.

In your latest letter, you present the possibility of equipping the Porsche with two separate CHMSLs. The CHMSL discussed in your April letter, located at the trailing edge of the spoiler, would be activated when the spoiler had risen 35% from its at-rest position, and be deactivated at the time the spoiler lowers to 35%, from the at-rest position. The second CHMSL, located on the spoiler where it abuts the vehicle body and mounted at a complying height, would be activated when the vehicle is at rest, and when the spoiler is at heights less than 35% from the at-rest position, generally at times that the other CHMSL is deactivated. You expect that all photometric and height requirements of Standard No. 108 will be met in switching from one lamp to another while the spoiler is moving, though it might be necessary to have both lamps functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

A manufacturer's certification of compliance to the CHMSL requirements of Standard No. 108 is based upon the normal operation of motor vehicle equipment. The additional CHMSL you posit would appear to fulfill these requirements when the vehicle is at rest, and in low speed operation. Thus, for certification purposes, we regard this CHMSL as the one for which certification is supplied.

However, it appears that the spoiler in rising may affect the photometric conformance of the certification CHMSL. Under S5.3.1.1, when a part of a vehicle prevents a stop lamp from meeting its photometric output at any

applicable group of test points, any auxiliary stop lamp that meets these requirements may be provided. We interpret this as allowing the non-certification CHMSL to perform as a surrogate to the certification CHMSL at the point that conformance of the certification CHMSL is affected.

You have raised the possibility that it will be necessary to have both CHMSLs operating simultaneously for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements. While the meaning of this statement is not exactly clear, for purposes of this interpretation, it would appear to mean that simultaneous operation of both lamps might occur briefly when the rising spoiler masks the certification CHMSL at the same time the non-certification CHMSL is operating at a height below the minimum specified by Standard No. 108. Although in the past we have encouraged disabling of interior mounted CHMSLs when new ones are added to fixed spoilers, so that a vehicle will not be equipped with two permanent simultaneously operating CHMSLs, the situation here appears to differ. Under the circumstances outlined above, it does not appear that a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would be created.

If our understanding is not correct, we would be willing to discuss the matter further.

ID: nht92-7.27

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7171)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamp lamps..." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not

meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

ID: aiam4222

Dear Mr. Panzer: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1986, describing supplemental hazard warning system you have developed which is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly. You have asked about its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111.; The information you enclosed depicts the lamp mounted above the outsid rear-view mirror in the same housing. According to your description it may face in the same direction as the mirror, or 'exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.' It will flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps, and 'can also perform as a directional signal.'; Standard No. 108 deals only indirectly with lighting systems other tha those which it requires. Supplemental lighting equipment and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible under Paragraph S4.1.3 as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We believe that a possibility of impairment of the turn signal system might exist if your lamp-mirror were to operate in this fashion, and only one such device were installed on a vehicle. This suggests lamps providing a turn-signal function be packaged and sold in pairs and conversely that lamps sold singly not provide a turn-signal function. On the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment otherwise would exist, or that the device would not be acceptable as original equipment. However, because of the dual nature of the American legal system the fact that an accessory is not prohibited by Federal law does not mean that it is permissible under the laws of the individual States. We are not able to advise you as to these laws but you may wish to check with the Motor Vehicle Administrators of the States where you intend to sell your device.; As you surmised, there is also a relationship of Standard No. 111 t your device as an item of original equipment. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself bears upon its permissibility as an aftermarket item. Standard No. 111 requires each passenger car to be equipped with an outside rear-view mirror on the driver's side, under paragraph S5.2.2 '...neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1.' You have not provided us with the dimensions of this device and while the photograph you enclosed showing it mounted on a Vauxhall car is inconclusive, it at least suggests that you examine this design with S5.2.2 in mind. This prohibition does not extend to an exterior-mounted mirror on the passenger side. You should also be aware that the same restriction applies to driver-side mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses other than schoolbuses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that are equipped with mirrors that comply with the requirements of paragraph S5, an option permitted by paragraph S6.1(a) of the standard.; Although the safety standards do not apply once a vehicle is sold, th Traffic Safety Act prohibits persons other than a vehicle owner from 'rendering inoperative in whole or in part' safety equipment installed on a vehicle to achieve compliance with safety standards. The agency is concerned that a light incorporated with a rear view mirror could create glare to the driver, thus rendering the mirror partially 'inoperative' within the meaning of the standard, even if the replacement mirror otherwise complies with Standard No. 111.; You should also be aware of the other performance and locatio requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars in Standard No. 111. The outside rearview mirror on the driver's side must be of unit magnification and must comply with field of view requirements as well as the mounting requirements referred to above. Regarding the passenger's side, an outside rearview mirror is required only if the inside rearview mirror fails to meet the field of view requirements. This outside rearview mirror may be either plane or convex and must comply with the mounting and adjustability requirements in paragraph S5.3. If this outside rearview mirror is convex, it must meet the requirements for convex mirrors in paragraph S5.4.; I hope that this clarifies the relationship of the Federal standards t your device, and if there are any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5484

"Dear Ms. Chamberlain: This responds to your letter asking about ho this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an emergency kit the size of an 'oversize notebook.' The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and possibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that there are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit. Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5072

Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992 enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter. The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses. In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of 'compartmentalization' has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were 'attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome.' In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that 'the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries.' The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, 'a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones.' A summary of the NAS report is enclosed. In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements. While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, 'states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly.' In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Marion C. Blakey Enclosure cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon;

ID: aiam4788

"Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your letter dated June 28, 199 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th. I. Car Phone Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use. The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds. The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is 'in use'. The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators). None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position. The illumination is not variable in any display. You asked whether the car phone displays are 'telltales' or other 'sources of illumination,' within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101. Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays 'indicate the actuation of a device', while the NS display indicates 'a failure to function'. Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements. The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ('number dialed') and the second display ('push button') are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The 'number dialed' display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing. Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must 'have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off.' Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met. II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the 'ON' position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale 'it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.' Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: 86-5.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry Woodman -- Orthotist, Winkley Orthopedic Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/6/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Robert Daugherty (Std. 213); 7/31/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Richard J. Maher; 2/5/88 letter from Robert Daugherty to Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

Mr. Terry Woodman Orthotist Winkley Orthopedic Laboratory 740 Douglas Drive North Golden Valley, MN 55422

Dear Mr. Woodman:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Oesch of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint System (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked whether car seats designed for use by severely physically handicapped children are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The answer to your question is yes.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh ?? pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pound; or less. Further, section S6.1.2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language. "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed the center seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

We discussed this issue in some detail in a February 13, 1986, final to amending Standard No. 213 (51 FR 5335; copy enclosed). NHTSA had published a proposal that would have required all all child restraints except child harnesses to pass the 30 mile per hour (mph) frontal crash test of Standard No. 213 without attaching any tether strap. However, a number of commenters urged the agency to also exempt child restraints design for handicapped children from the proposed requirement to pass the 30 test without attaching any tether strap. These comments are discussed in 51 FR 5338. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended the final rule to provide that child restraints for use by physically handicapped children could attach tether straps during the mph test. As noted in the preamble to that final rule, "there is no alternative at present to the use of tether straps to provide the necessary upper torso support for physically handicapped children. Hence, any requirement to eliminate the use of tether straps on restraints for physically handicapped children would lessen the protection available for those children."

NHTSA knows of at least one manufacturer of child restraints for use by physically handicapped children that has incorporated a tether strap and certified that these restraints comply with all requirements of Standard No. 213. Since it is possible to offer these children the safe level of crash protection afforded to all other children, NHTSA believes there is no reason to permit physically handicapped children to be offered a lesser degree of safety protection in the event of a clash.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this topic, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

September 4, 1986

Office, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Att: Steve Oesch NOA--32

Dear Mr. Oesch:

I have been told that I should contact your office regarding a ruling about wheel chair seating systems being used in cars as carseats for infants.

I have enclosed a picture of the system seat belted in the car and also a picture of it in a stroller. The system is designed to be used in a wheel chair or stroller on an independent base. As you can tell, this system is used with very handicapped children who need positioning support whenever sitting.

My question is this: Does adaptive equipment such as this system need to meet federal regulations regarding child seating systems for automobiles?

Could you please inform me of this. It would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Terry Woodman Orthotist Winkley Orthopedic Laboratories