ID: nht80-2.28

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your March 28, 1980, letter to this office in which you inquired about permissible markings on motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked whether you could insert language in addition to that specified in Standard No. 119 when labeling the load rating and inflation pressure on certain tire sizes. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119) specifies certain requirements which all motorcycle tires offered for sale in this country must meet. One of these provisions is the labeling requirement set forth in paragraph S6.5 of the standard. Subparagraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on the tire in the following words: "Max load lbs at psi cold." The language of the subsection is mandatory and does not permit any variations. Therefore, the insertion of the phrase "in USA and Canada," as you suggest, would mean the tire would not comply with the labeling requirement of Standard No. 119.

The reason for this strict wording requirement is to ensure that the information labeled on motorcycle tires conveys necessary safety information to the purchaser of the tire in a clear, straightforward manner that is uniform with all motorcycle tires. Adding language which suggests that the maximum load of a tire depends on the country in which the tire is being used could confuse the user of the tire. Further, it suggests that the printed maximum load is not really the maximum. Either of these results frustrates the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Continental Products Corporation

March 28, 1980

Mr. Steve Kratzke U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION Nat'l. Hwy. Traffic Safety, Rm 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

On three of our motorcycle tire sizes we plan to have the following inscription on the sidewall:

450H(V)17: Max Load in USA and Canada 835 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

120/90H(V)18: Max Load in USA and Canada 805 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

MT90S16: Max Load in USA and Canada 960 lbs at 42 PSI Cold

The underlined part will all be on one line on the sidewall of the tire. Besides the above information, all the other required DOT information will, of course, appear on the tire.

What sets these apart from our other sizes is the notation that this load is in USA and Canada.

We would appreciate it if you could let us know latest 4/11/80 whether or not your department has any objections.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President

AVR/sms

ID: nht80-2.29

DATE: 05/01/80 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu "Kazu" Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking how you should modify labels that you incorrectly installed on approximately 4,000 chassis-cabs. The labels that you installed state that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards, and this is not true. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you indicate that your company would be willing to install correct certification labels over the old incorrect labels by the use of adhesives.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that your suggested attachment of new labels over the old labels would be sufficient to bring the chassis-cabs into compliance with the regulations. As you know, the new labels must be permanently attached and not easily removable. Also, we would require that the new labels completely cover the old labels, and that the incorrect information from the old labels not be legible through the new labels. If your proposal meets these two requirements, we would accept this as a satisfactory solution. We do ask that you notify us when you have completed the relabeling process.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1980

Mr. Roger S. Tilton (NOA-30) Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is regarding the telephone conversation you had with Mr. Hisakazu Murakami on April 7, 1980 concerning the problem written below.

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., mistakenly attached the wrong certification label, which is required by Part 567, on our 1980 Model Datsun Chassis-Cab Vehicle (Datsun 720). The wrong label reads: "This Vehicle Conforms to all Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in Effective in ." However, the label should read: "This Chassis-Cab Conforms to Federal Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. ."

We are sure that the correct labels will be attached on the Chassis-Cabs which are located at our assembly plants and also the ones that are now in the process of being shipped to the U.S.A. However, there are approximately 4,000 or less Chassis-Cabs which have been sold to dealers or so called body builders which have the wrong label. We believe it may be possible for us to submit all of the VIN numbers for the Chassis-Cabs which bear the wrong labels.

We would be willing to make our best efforts based on your recommendations concerning this matter. I would appreciate it if you would contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my staff, at (202) 466-5284 concerning what necessary steps we should take.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

ID: nht80-2.3

DATE: 04/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Home Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 15 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Don Gerkin Product Engineer Cosco Home Products 2525 State Street Columbus, Indiana 47201

Dear Mr. Gerkin:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 1980, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

You asked whether a crotch strap that is "permanently attached to a movable shield can be attached during the 20 mph test required for child restraint systems that have fixed or movable shields. Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that, in the 20 mph tests, the child restraint belts are not to be attached unless "they are an integral part of the fixed or movable shield." The agency used the word "integral" in its ordinary sense to mean something that is "formed as a unit with another part." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977). A crotch strap that is permanently affixed to the shield is formed as a unit with the shield, and therefore, can remain attached during the test.

You also asked, whether, if the movable shield "were designed in such a way that moving it into position for use it automatically locked in that position, and a child was unable to unlock it", would the 20 mph test be conducted with the shield locked into place? Sections S6.1.2.3.1(c) and S6.1.2.3.2(b) provide that each movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Therefore, as long as your instructions explain how to lock the movable shield, it can be locked into place prior to the testing.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Vladislav Radovich Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

January 23, 1980

RE: (49CFR Part 571) (Docket No. 74-9; Notice 6)

Dear Mr. Radovich:

After reviewing our arm rest model and shield model Child Restraints, it is obvious we can salvage nothing. We must start over with some new concepts.

As there is no time for us to waste, we need the Agency's official answer on some points in order to continue.

1. If a barrier were designed in such a way that the top end of the crotch strap was permanently attached to it. The other end of the strap was removable from its anchorage point below the plastic shell attached to a frame only by removing some hardware that is never intended to be removed as long as the barrier is attached to the child restraint.

Can the 20 MPH test for compliance be conducted with the barrier and crotch strap hooked up as described above?

2. If a barrier were designed in such a way that moving it into position for use it automatically locked in that position, and a child was unable to unlock it. Would the 20 MPH test for compliance be conducted with it locked as described above?

We would appreciate your attention to these points at the earliest moment.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken Product Engineer

rm

ID: nht80-2.30

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1980, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Section S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section specifies requirements affecting school bus signal lamps "when the bus entrance door is opened." Blue Bird is designing an additional entrance door for its buses and you interpret S4.1.4 as requiring the same operational characteristics for the new door.

We confirm your interpretation that "entrance door" means any entrance door on the school bus. Obviously the purpose of the requirement is not achieved if it is restricted to the traditional entrance door on the right front side of the bus and excludes any other entrance door.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

April 14, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of designing an entrance door that will be located behind the driver on the left side of school buses. This entrance door will be in addition to the normal right front entrance door and will operate independently.

FMVSS 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motor-cycles, Section S4.1.4 requires school buses to be equipped with signal lamps that, in addition to other requirements:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

From this statement, we interpret "entrance door" to mean any and all entrance doors. In the case described above, we interpret the standard as requiring the same operational characteristics of both the normal right front entrance door and the new left side entrance with regard to activation and deactivation of signal lamps. This letter seeks confirmation of this interpretation. Your early response will be apprecated.

Thank you!

Thomas D. Turner Supervisor Engineering Services Department

c: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

ID: nht80-2.31

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, requesting confirmation of the applicability of S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) solely to light trucks and passenger cars.

Although Standard No. 115 applies to a variety of vehicle types, including multipurpose passenger vehicles, the location requirement in S4.4 regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number is of more limited applicability. The section expressly provides that the requirement applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less only. Since Standard No. 115 does not contain any other VIN location requirement, manufacturers of multi-purpose passenger vehicle, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and heavy trucks are not limited by that standard in their choice of a VIN location. For definitions of these vehicle types, see 49 CFR 571.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 3, 1980

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

SUBJECT: Applicability of FMVSS115, S4.4

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter will confirm a telephone conversation of February 13, 1980 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and yourself regarding the applicability of FMVSS 115 paragraph S4.4 to Multi Purpose Vehicles. Mr. Hamilton was advised of the following:

S4.4 does not apply to MPV's or vans. Further, the NHTSA had not intended for MPV's or vans to meet the requirement that the VIN be readable through the windshield glass from a point outside the vehicle. As written S4.4 is applicable only to passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The above represents our understanding of the applicability of S4.4 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY;

F. L. Krall, Manager -- Technical Legislation

ID: nht80-2.32

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Miller Tilt-Top Trailer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1980, in which you request approval for the vehicle identification numbering (VIN) system Miller Tilt-Top Trailer, Inc., proposes to use to satisfy the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve a manufacturer's compliance with the safety standards, as manufacturers serve as self-certifiers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information that you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115. We would also recommend that when you submit information to the agency pursuant to S6 of the standard, you follow each "series" designation (4th and 5th characters of the VIN) with the phrase "rectangular, flat platform trailer and body."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 2, 1980

Fred Schwartz -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS-115 VIN Requirement

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

The following is my understanding of the new VIN requirement, as it will be implemented by Miller Tilt-Top Trailer:

- To be supplied by S.A.E.

- Series of trailer (i.e. "OT").

- Length of platform to nearest foot (i.e. "20"). *

- Number of axles (i.e. "4").

- Check digit (calculated per S5.1).

- Model year (i.e. "A" for 1980).

- Plant of manufacture (i.e. "M" for Milwaukee).

- Sequential number assigned by Miller Trailer

* - All trailers that we manufacture have a rectangular, flat platform which should satisfy the "Type of Trailer" and "Body Type" information requirements.

Does all of this information meet with D.O.T. approval?

Sincerely,

MILLER TILT-TOP TRAILER, INC.;

Philip J. Carpenter -- Administrative Engineer

ID: nht80-2.33

DATE: 05/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartmen, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 7 1980

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

Dear Mr. Halper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

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

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

Dear Mr. Oesch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: nht80-2.34

DATE: 05/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Samual S. Stratton - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 7 1980

NOA-30

Honorable Samuel S. Stratton House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stratton:

This responds to your recent correspondence requesting information on behalf of the Schenectady County Traffic Safety Board. The Safety Board is concerned that many new or converted propane-powered vehicles carry no identification indicating that the vehicles contain propane fuel instead of gasoline. The Safety Board states that this creates a dangerous situation for firemen, policemen or other emergency personnel who respond to accidents involving propane-powered vehicles. You were asked to initiate legislative action to require such identification on these vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if there were a demonstrated safety need for identification on propane vehicles, the agency would have authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) to require a label or tag as was suggested by the Safety Board. Please inform the Safety Board that it should petition the agency to initiate rulemaking action to establish such a requirement if it has information or evidence indicating that a safety problem does indeed exist. I have enclosed a copy of the regulation which explains what must be included in a Petition for Rulemaking.

The agency has no authority under the Vehicle Safety Act to regulate used motor vehicles and, therefore, could not require an identification label on a used vehicle that is converted to propane fuel. Congress left this jurisdiction to the individual States. Consequently, Congressional action or action at the State level would be required to mandate identification labels on used vehicles.

I am also enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discusses the implications under Federal law of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in motor vehicles and of converting vehicles to the use of propane gas. Although not directly related to the Safety Board's concern, it might be of interest.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

3 Enclosures: Constitutent's correspondence Copy of regulation Copy of August letter

March 26, 1980

Hon. Samuel Stratton House of Representatives United States Congress Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Congressman Stratton:

The Schenectady County Traffic Safety Board is concerned that many new or converted propane-propelled vehicles carry no indication that these vehicles contain propane fuel tanks.

This lack of information could have very tragic results if a propane-propelled vehicle is involved in an accident or catches on fire. Firemen, policemen, or other emergency personnel responding to the scene will be unaware of the danger presented by the propane fuel tanks and will not take the proper precautions required when working near such a highly volatile substance.

The Traffic Safety Board strongly recommends that new or converted propane-propelled vehicles be clearly marked as carrying propane fuel tanks. The marking should be in a conspicuous location and might be similar to the markings that are currently used on many vehicles to identify them as being diesel-powered or as using only unleaded fuel.

The Traffic Safety Board asks for your help in initiating legislative action on this matter. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John L. McGovern Chairman

JJMG/db

cc: Traffic Safety Board Members Executive Secretary

ID: nht80-2.35

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avery International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MAY 8, 1980

Mr. Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager Avery International Specialty Materials Division 50-L Edwards Ferry Road Leesburg, Virginia 22075

Dear Mr. Lundregan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows "reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) to be used to increase visibility on the front of trucks and heavy vehicles".

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.

However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truck and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

AVERY INTERNATIONAL Specialty Materials Division

April 16, 1980

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Rulemaking Section Office of the Chief Council NOA-30 NHTSA 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Avery International manufactures self adhesive materials for a wide variety of uses including markings, decals, striping, etc. for various vehicles.

Although our Fasign reflective materials may be used for markings on the side and the rear of trucks and heavy vehicles, a question has been asked on whether similar reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) may be used to increase visibility on the front of such vehicles?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 on lights and reflective devices does not seem to address this particular question.

Since Avery is in the process of possible marketing for such truck markings, we would appreciate a ruling, interpretation, or reference to something specific regarding this subject.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager

RFL:jh

ID: nht80-2.36

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufacturers. You ask whether the seats would qualify as "designated seating positions", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats . . . . (emphasis added).

As described and illustrated in your letter, the Nissan seats in question appear to qualify as folding jump seats. Consequently, under the definition above they would not be considered "designated seating positions". Although this is the case, we encourage you to install safety belts for these jump seats as you had previously planned. Likewise, we hope you will ensure that the seats have a crashworthiness performance equivalent to that required by Safety Standard No. 207 (for "designated seating positions") when the jump seats are folded into place for occupant use.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

April 23, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning Part 571 Definition "Designated Seating Position."

Our questions can be found on the attached pages. We would like to ask that you treat the attached pages as "Confidential" until it is introduced to the public. Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ATTACH.

cc: HUGH OATES (NOA-30)