ID: nht80-4.22

DATE: 12/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Seats Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1980, letter asking a question about the appropriate test force for school bus seat belts. In particular, you ask whether seat belts mounted on a seat frame that employ a common U-Bolt would be tested separately or simultaneously.

As you are aware, the agency issued an interpretation stating that for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, seat belts mounted on a school bus seat frame can be tested separately as long as they have separate anchorages. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that it would not consider the seat to be a common anchorage when testing school bus seat belts.

If I understand your letter correctly, your seat frame has separate anchorage holes in it. However, the inside portions of the two seat belt systems would be tied together by a common U-Bolt. If this is the means by which you will manufacture your school buses, the seat belts must be tested simultaneously. The use of the U-Bolt provides a common anchorage between the two seat belt systems which require simultaneous testing.

Seats

October 31, 1980

Roger Tilton U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I am requesting further clarification on FMVSS Standard 222, school bus seating, in the area of seat belt load requirements as outlined in FMVSS Standard 210.

It is my understanding that the simultaneous load testing for two passenger seats is not required but that the 5,000-pound force must be tested at each seating position as long as each seating position provides its own anchorage holes for seat belt mounting.

The clarification of this ruling I am requesting is: on a two-passenger seat, in the metal frame construction, there are holes or provisions for individual mounting of seat belts. If a person mounted these two seat belts in the center by means of a "U-Bolt" sliding the belts on the "U" and then attaching the two nuts, would this means still fall under the above mentioned requirements?

Harold J. Van Duser Engineering U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

OCT 27 1980

Mr. Harold Van Duser Seats, Inc.

Dear Mr. Van Duser:

Pursuant to your telephone request of October 15, 1980, asking for information relating to the test requirements for seat belts in school buses. I am enclosing a previous agency interpretation specifying the required test forces. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Roger Tilton

ID: nht80-4.23

DATE: 12/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 20, 1980, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number (49 CFR 571.115).

Your question concerns the submission of horsepower data to the agency as required by the standard (S4.5.2). On February 25, 1980, the agency published an amendment to Standard No. 115 in the Federal Register (45 FR 12255) which authorized slight variations between the engine horsepower encoded in the vehicle identification number (VIN) and the actual engine horsepower. Except in the case of motorcycles, a variance in horsepower of plus or minus 10 percent was authorized. You wish to know whether the engine horsepower data you submit to the agency should be consistent with the VIN coding, or whether you should submit the precise horsepower.

The information which must be submitted pursuant to S6.3 is that necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN. Consequently, the engine horsepower submitted should represent the horsepower actually encoded in the VIN, whether or not this is the precise horsepower.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 20, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

RE: Submission Data for VIN

As per our conversation concerning the above captioned matter, the following is (Illegible Word) question which we request to have your official written interpretation as soon as possible.

QUESTION

Is it necessary to submit the precise data concerning the engine net horse powers for each engine type which shows or certifies that our brake hose powers are within the same engine type differ or does not differ of more than 10 percent, in the case of the vehicles except motorcycles?

Sincerely yours, R. Kawaguchi -- Technical Representative, Toyo Kogyo USA Office

ID: nht80-4.24

DATE: 12/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 1980, enclosing a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency asking several questions about the relationship of your operation to the joint importation regulations.

As you have explained it the facts appear to be these: Volkswagen of America (VWoA) imports certain items of motor vehicle equipment which are incorporated together with parts of domestic manufacture into automobiles manufactured in the United States. As the components do not enter the "U.S. Customs Territory" en route to the plant, which is in a Foreign Trade Subzone, HS-7 forms are not provided at time of importation, but are furnished to Customs on a weekly basis together with formal Consumption Entries. You have asked

1) Must we file a [HS-7 Form] with each Consumption Entry?

The answer is no. Under the joint Custom-DOT importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b), declarations are required for equipment items "offered for introduction into the Customs Territory of the United States." Such an introduction might be deemed to occur upon entry into interstate commerce of the motor vehicle incorporating the parts shipped from abroad (i.e. when it leaves the Subzone). But since the vehicle itself must be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards we see no useful purpose to be served by requiring VWoA to submit HS-7 Forms for these parts, no matter what forms are required by other Federal agencies.

2) Do we have to amend previously filed forms?

For the reasons indicated in reply to your first question there is no need for VWoA to continue burdening either itself or this agency with these forms, amended or otherwise.

3) Do we have to enter "pilot vehicles" under a Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entry, or can we pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone?

This question which you asked EPA has no apparent applicability to our regulations and I surmise that you are asking whether you must file a HS-7 Form with pilot vehicles and at what point is the filing appropriate.

No filing is necessary -- We understand the "pilot vehicle" to be a pre-production prototype manufactured in the New Stanton plant. Although that plant may be outside the Customs Territory of the United States for purposes of Customs regulations, it is within the "United States" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Therefore when the vehicle leaves the Subzone, it is not "imported" into the United States and no HS-7 Form is required. Driving the pilot vehicle on the public roads outside the Subzone, however, introduces it into interstate commerce and it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if VWoA is not to be in violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

WESTMORELAND ASSEMBLY PLANT

October 28, 1980

Department of Transportation NHTSA

Attention Chief Counsel - NHTSA

Gentlemen:

This will serve to confirm my telephone conversation with Mr. Buckley on October 27, 1980. We briefly discussed certain questions that we have relative to filing Customs entries and associated documents for automobiles and automobile trucks withdrawn from our Foreign Trade Subzone. The same questions have been placed before the EPA. Therefore, we respectively request that the enclosed letter to EPA be accepted and the questions asked be answered in behalf of DOT. This would involve the filing of the DOT form HS-7 and your position on our pilot vehicles.

If you should have any questions pertaining to the above or the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 696-6358.

David N. Miller, Jr.

Manager Foreign Trade Zone Operations

ATTACH.

CC: E. BUCKLEY -- NHTSA

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

WESTMORELAND ASSEMBLY PLANT

October 28, 1980

Robert Marconi Attorney for the Investigations/Imports Section Manufacturers Operations Div. (EN-340) Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Sir:

This will serve to confirm our telephone conversation during the week of October 6, 1980. As discussed, our Westmoreland Assembly Plant is a Foreign Trade Subzone (#33A), and we have some unique problems. Possibly some background information would be helpful for you to better answer our questions.

Our Subzone was activated on January 2, 1979. We receive both foreign and domestic automotive components to be assembled together to produce our vehicles. The majority of the foreign components move from the U.S. ports of arrival "in bond" to the plant. Such parts do not enter into the "U. S. Customs territory." After our vehicles are produced, they are withdrawn from the Subzone and at that time, they enter into the "U. S. Customs territory." Each day we submit to Customs a request to withdraw vehicles produced for domestic consumption. This is done on a CF 215, and attached thereto are the specific vehicle VIN numbers. (A separate CF 215 and VIN listing is filed for automobiles and automobile trucks.) Weekly, we prepare formal Consumption Entries (CF 7501) and submit them along with the EPA (3520-1) and DOT (HS-7) forms, which includes VIN listings previously filed with the respective CF 215s. For automobiles we pay duty on the composite foreign material content at the automobile duty rate. We pay duty on the individual foreign components at their various part tariff rates for automobile trucks. Vehicles exported from the Subzone under Transportation and Exportation Bond Entries (CF 7512) do not enter the "U. S. Customs territory," and no duties are paid and would not be reported to Customs on a CF 215 nor to EPA. Hopefully, this has given you some insight on our operations. If more details are required, please feel free to contact me.

Our inquiry covers three (3) situations, and the first two are somewhat related. The questions under discussion are as follows:

1) Must we file an EPA form 3520-1 with each Consumption Entry? Normally, vehicles produced outside of the United States and subsequently imported, require the filing of the EPA form. However, even though our vehicles have not entered the legal "U. S. Customs territory" until they are withdrawn from our Subzone for domestic consumption, they are still considered as being manufactured within the United States. U. S. Customs themselves have no problem with us not submitting these documents since they are only administratively handling your regulatory requirements for Consumption Entries covering motor vehicles.

2) Do we have to amend previously filed forms?

For Model Year 1980 (i.e. August. 1979 thru August, 1980), we produced 246,111 vehicles. Our initial analysis indicates that we reported only 245,995 to Customs, EPA and DOT. Therefore, it appears that 116 vehicles (VINs) which are a combination of automobiles and automobile trucks, have not been declared. A portion of these vehicles may have been properly exported plus entered under Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entries, and therefore, not reflected on CF 215, EPA and DOT documentation. To qualify what automobile and/or automobile truck was not reported on what date and applicable EPA and DOT form would be very time consuming and costly. Therefore, we make a proposal to submit for Model Year 1980 a complete VIN listing and identify those exported or entered under T.I.B. versus amending each EPA/DOT form. Also, please accept this as an alternate proposal for future Model Years instead of filing EPA/DOT forms on a weekly basis with our Consumption Entries.

3) Do we have to enter "pilot vehicles" under a Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entry or can we pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone?

As with all automotive manufacturers, we produce a limited quantity of preproduction "pilot vehicles." We had seventy (70) for Model Year 1980 and forty-seven (47) for Model Year 1981. They are normally used for testing, evaluation, advertising, etc. It has been our normal practice to enter these vehicles under T.I.B. Entries. However, we would prefer to pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone. Again, U. S. Customs has no problem with us paying duty on these vehicles versus entering them under T.I.B. Entries.

Your prompt consideration to our questions and proposals would be greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 696-6358.

David N. Miller, Jr. Manager Foreign Trade Zone Operations

CC: W. E. BOOTH, PORT DIRECTOR PITTSBURGH CUSTOMS; CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

ID: nht80-4.25

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cragar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked me to respond to your October 14, 1980, letter asking for a clarification of the basis upon which it was suggested that your wheel spinners may not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps.

Standard No. 211 prohibits the manufacture or assembly of wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps that incorporate winged projections. This safety standard has been in effect since 1968 and was implemented at that time, because it was determined that these devices presented potential safety hazards to pedestrians and to cyclists. Prior to 1968, manufacturers were constructing devices with winged projections that extended quite far from the wheel. To prevent this from arising again, the agency issued the standard prohibiting the manufacture of all such devices.

From reviewing the wheel spinner that you are producing, our technical staff has concluded that it incorporates a winged projection of the type prohibited by the standard. Accordingly, our staff notified you of your possible noncompliance. I trust that this clarifies the basis of our investigation. Any questions that you have with respect to this possible noncompliance should be referred to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Pursuant to your request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will provide confidential treatment, subject to the limitation of 15 U.S.C. 1418(a)(2)(B), for the total production figure in paragraph 4 of your October 14 letter.

ID: nht80-4.26

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking questions with respect to the term "overall vehicle width" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle to be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing "overall vehicle width." Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.

Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are such that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.

Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

October 30, 1980

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt

Subject: FMVSS108 Interpretation

File: S203.108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of IVECO, (Industrial Vehicles Company) B.V. of Amsterdam, Holland. As such we act as importers into the United States of two lines of trucks. One of these lines is the new IVECO Z Range built in Brescia, Italy. It is with regard to this vehicle that we have some questions concerning FMVSS108 and request an offical interpretation. In particular, FMVSS108 makes a basic division of vehicle lighting requirements by "overall vehicle width" defined in 40 CFR, Part 571.3, Definitions. The current definition to the best of our knowledge is: "Overall vehicle width means the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight ahead position."

With regard to this definition:

1) Are door handles to be considered as a part of the vehicle to be included in the "overall vehicle width" or is the intent of the definition to take into account only the major body structure as would seem to be indicated by the list of exceptions?

2) If a vehicle were designed such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" was above 80 inches, but the tolerance was such that specific vehicles might in reality be manufactured below 80 inches.

a) Do such vehicles, which physically measure under 80 inches, require the marker/identification lamps per greater than 80" width requirements or should they more properly meet the lighting requirements for vehicles under 80"?

In affect, what is the meaning of "nominal design width" and how does it relate to compliance of vehicles which physically meet one criteria while technically appear to meet another.

These questions are of great concern to us, therefore we would appreciate as prompt an interpretive reply as possible. If clarification or additional information is required, please do not hesitate to call me at the above address and phone number. If a meeting is deemed necessary, I am likewise available. Thank you for your assistance.

Carl G. F. Pedersen

cc: N. GOODWIN

ID: nht80-4.27

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses must have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back.

The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to a side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing.

A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit if the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION

October 28, 1980

Roy Shannon U.S. Department of Transportation N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Shannon:

I am writing to you reference our conversation about the 1980 Thomas School Bus Body with the Side Emergency Door. I have enclosed pictures and a sketch with measurements.

In further inspection of this Emergency Door, I find it quite difficult to exit, especially if you are sitting in the seat located in the door opening. (The State of Wisconsin Rule MVD 17 requires a 12 inch aisle to the Emergency Door zone.)

I am interested in the application of your Standard No. 217, Section S5.4.2.1 (b) which reads: In the case of a side emergency door, an opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide. A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. Does this mean that there must be an opening with access or does it mean that there must only be an opening in the side of the bus that size? The seat blocks this emergency door opening so that there is not an opening 45 inches by 24 inches.

Thank you for your interest and attention and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Ronald H. Wonders Inspector III

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.28

DATE: 12/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motors Corp. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

In your letter you ask whether 1981 model year vehicles produced before the effective date of the standard, September 1, 1980, need comply with the standard. It would not be a violation of Standard No. 115 to produce 1981 model year vehicles which do not comply with the standard so long as they were manufactured prior to September 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 26, 1980

Ref. 80-116-M

Frederic W. Schwartz -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter is in response to your telephone request concerning 1981 Datsun Models' VIN Systems (new and old).

After our plants in Japan took their summer vacation (August 9-17, 1980), Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Model Vehicles with new VIN System Numbers that have seventeen (17) characters and meet the new requirements of FMVSS No. 115, VIN which has been applied to the vehicles that have been produced on and after September 1, 1980.

However, before the summer vacation mentioned above, Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Models with old VIN System Numbers because the new machines for the New VIN Numbers were introduced into our plants during the summer vacation. There are approximately 34,430 Datsun 1981 Models with old VIN Numbers (Attachment).

Nissan has been guaranteed by the Federal Government that we are not violating the Federal Law by using the old VIN System Numbers on 1981 Model Vehicles produced before August 31, 1980.

We hope this information will be sufficient for your needs. Your taking the information mentioned above into consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Hisakazu Murakami -- Washington Representative, Safety

Attachment

VIN. FOR DATSUN '81 MODELS OLD VIN. NEW VIN. Model Starting Beginning Production Starting Beginning Production Vin. Volume Production VIN.

Date Date 210 80.07.31. LB310-077293 JN1 CB02S 7 BU 080076 HLB310-746820 80.08.20. JN1 HB02S 0 BU 450001 PLB310-547078 8,138 JN1 PB02S 9 BU 650001 WPLB310-035876 JN1 PB01S 5 BU 150001 KPLB310-220965 JN1 PB05S 9 BU 038005 80.07.02 PN10-000036 80.08.19 JN1 PN03S X BM 000888 310 2,875 JN1 PN06S 2 BM 000735 KPN10-000027 JN1 PN04S 9 BM 000668 510 80.08.01 HLA10-200031 1,542 80.08.18 JN1 HT02S 5 BT 200160 FHLA10-200031 JN1 HT03S 0 BT 200338 510 80.07.22 WHLA10-125001 594 80.08.18 JN1 HT05S 8 BX 125667 Wagon 810 80.07.14 HG910-000101 491 80.08.18 JN1 HU01S 8 BT 000596 810 80.06.27 WHD910-000001 270 80.08.18 JN1 HU05S 0 BX 000322 Wagon 200SX 80.07.31 PS110-215386 80.08.20JN1 PS06S 6 2,830 BU 400001 KPS110-038159 JN1 PS04S 6 BU 300001 280ZX 30.06.23 HS130-250021 7,170 80.08.18 JN1 HZ04S 9 BX 254601 HGS130-180040 JN1 HZ06S 0 BX 182555 Pickup 80.07.07 No. 1 Plant NO. 1 Plant M720-000012 JN6 MD01S 2 BW 002786 MG720-000011 10,520 80.08.18 JN6 MD02S X BW 001903 KM720-000021 JN6 MD06S X BW 002972 EM720-000016 JN6 MD05H 6 BW 000036 MY720-000008 JN6 MD01Y 1 BW 001424 KMY720-000004 JN6 MD06Y 0 BW 001942 NO. 2 Plant NO. 2 Plant MGY720-000001 JN6 MD02Y 8 BW 500493

Total, 34,430

ID: nht80-4.29

DATE: 12/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 10, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether Ford may make a minor variation in the language specified in S5.5.2(g) for the label that must be permanently affixed to child restraints. As explained below, you may use the language proposed in your letter.

Section 5.5.1 of the standard requires that each child restraint be permanently labeled with specified information. Section 5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g)-(k) must be displayed on the child restraint so that it is visible when the restraint is installed in the vehicle.

You state that the only information specified for the visible label that is applicable to the Ford "TOT GUARD" is the language in S5.5.2(g). That section provides that the child restraint must be labeled with the following words:

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED .

You are concerned that the above language may create potential confusion for users of the "TOT GUARD" since the user might be led to believe that more than one instruction is applicable. In your proposed revision, the word "each of" would be deleted from the warning and the word "instructions" would be changed to the singular.

Your proposed revision does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the warning specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language for restraints that only need to be labeled with one of the specified instructions, it is permitted.

SINCERELY,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

November 10, 1980

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I request confirmation that the following variation of the language specified in subsection S5.5.2(g) acceptably meets the requirements of subsection S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213.

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING [INSTRUCTIONS] CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED UNDER THE SEAT PAD.

None of the instructions specified in subsections S5.5.2(h) through (k) of Standard No. 213 is appropriate for the installation of Ford's "TOT GUARD" child restraint system. Accordingly, were our labelling to employ literally the language set forth in subsection S5.5.2(g), the user would be provided with a single cautionary instruction following the warning paragraph but led to believe by the warning paragraph that more than one instruction is applicable. To avoid potential confusion on this point, we propose to delete the words and letter bracketed and struck-through above and add the underlined language.

I am confident that the Administration will find Ford's proposed version of the warning and instruction language for its TOT GUARD label unobjectionable. I should appreciate, however, having your confirmation that this is the case.

D. G. McGuigan

CC: J. A. STARKEY

ID: nht80-4.3

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 4, 1980 letter to this office in which you requested confirmation that a certain tire size was listed for use with a particular rim size in a tire publication recognized by this agency for purposes of Standard 110. Page 1-11 of the 1980 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association lists a 5 1/2 inch rim as appropriate for use with 185/7OR14 tires. Thus, use of the 5 1/2 inch rims with that size tire would satisfy the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of Standard 110.

If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

September 4, 1980

Steven R. Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Please confirm that radial tires sized 185/70HR14 are listed in an NHTSA-recognized tire publication for use with a 5 1/2J x 14 wheel rim and that this combination therefore meets the tire and rim matching requirements of FMVSS 110.

Thank you for your assistance.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Bruce Henderson

ID: nht80-4.4

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which you posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.

(1) No, T&RA design information is not considered part of the T&RA yearbook for purposes of Standard 119. Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.

(2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) published November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.

(3) The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by this agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, your company requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II in a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.

(4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tires with a load range greater than "J" in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load range "J" tires, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.

(5) When your company submits matching information to this agency pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119. it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.

(6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests for tubeless tires with load ranges greater than "J". The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard was being developed. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information on the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition you referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

July 17, 1980

Ref. No.: HH-80-152

Office of Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We would appreciate your comments on the following questions relative to FMVSS 119.

1) Is TRA Engineering Design Information regarded as a part of the TRA Yearbook from the approval standpoint of FMVSS 119?

2) The latest table of Plunger Energy in FMVSS 119 that we have in our file is as of November 13, 1973. If this is not the latest one available, what is the most current?

3) We understand ETRTO sent a petition to you on November 2, 1977 regarding the Plunger Energy setting of "L" at 21,000 lbs. and "M" at 23,200 lbs. We would like to know if this has been approved by NHTSA.

4) Since the highest load ranges is "J" in our table, we have been testing our 18R22.5 20PR tire at load range "J" for Plunger Energy. We would like to know if this is appropriate.

5) We understand that we are supposed to submit Matching information to you whenever we come up with a new size tire in FMVSS 119. We do distribute this type of information to our dealers and end-users. Is it satisfactory for us to send a copy of this Matching information to you or should we submit a letter to you for this purpose?

6) We believe that we are not the only one with these questions and we wonder if a similar petition has been submitted from other associations or manufacturers.

Thank you in advance for your time in answering the above questions. We will be looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

Hiromi Hamaya -- Vice President, Engineering Dept.