ID: nht88-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JACK MCCROSKEY; GLENDA SWANSON LYLE -- REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT DENVER COLORADO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/13/88 TO LARRY COOK FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE, OCC - 2539; LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO MARVIN ORNES FROM RE MORGAN; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 TO R. ROGERS FROM RE MORGAN, RE GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity opera tes three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-r estricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. Yo u enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted t o a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speed than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

2

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ens ure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standa rd No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not t o equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht76-1.9

DATE: 08/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Clayton Dewardre Company Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Clayton Dewandre Company's May 20, 1976, request for confirmation that its "Dual Brake Booster" system is designed to conform to the definition of "split service brake system" and the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3 specified in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems. In unimpaired braking, the Dual Brake Booster system supplies two separate brake circuits, the primary circuit which is initially powered by the driver's application of pedal force and subsequently supplemented by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system, and the secondary circuit which is powered by pressurized fluid from the pump accumulator system. In the event of a primary circuit failure, a mechanical connection unimpaired by a loss of reservior fluid continues to modulate the secondary circuit. In the event of the a secondary circuit failure, the driver's pedal application continues to actuate the primary circuit by muscular effort alone. A single master cylinder reservoir is provided to supply the primary circuit. A single pump reservoir supplies the pump, accumulator, and secondary circuit.

As you are no doubt aware, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not authorize a "type approval" of vehicle design as the basis for certification (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)). Our comments on the description of your system do not relieve the vehicle manufacturer of its responsibility to design a system for each of its products that actually complies with the standard's requirements.

From your description of the system, it would appear to qualify as a "split service brake system" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. You state that, in the event either subsystem is failed, the other subsystem is capable of indefinite operation. This conforms to the

2

NHTSA's September 14, 1973, letter to Citroen on the meaning of "unimpaired operation" of a subsystem.

With regard to partial failure performance, you state that the vehicle can meet the requirements of S5.1.2 (inadvertently designated as S5.1.1 in your letter) using either of the two subsystems.

With regard to the requirements of S5.1.3 (for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), you indicate that the vehicle is capable of stopping within the specified distances of column IV of Table II "purely by muscular effort of the driver". By this we assume you mean that the vehicle conforms to the condition required for testing under S5.1.3.1, i.e., with one power unit inoperative and deleted of all reserve capability. Please note that the NHTSA regards the "pump and accumulator" energy source to constitute a "brake power unit" and not a "brake power assist unit", because the described unit "provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, either directly or indirectly through the auxiliary device, with the operator action consisting only of modulating the energy application level." (S4 definition of "brake power unit").

We are assuming that Clayton Dewandre does not object to making public the designs described in your May 20 letter. The NHTSA will place the materials in the public docket three weeks after the date of this letter unless we hear otherwise from you.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Clayton Dewandre Company Limited

May 20, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Request for advice on the conformities of New Design equipment to the revised Hydraulic Brake System Standard FMVSS 105-75

Clayton Dewandre would like to take this opportunity to introduce to you our newly developed Hydraulic Brake Booster and associated system, (Illegible Word) on behalf of our potential customers, we seek clarification from you regarding its compliance with the revised Hydraulic Brake Standard FMVSS 105-75.

We would refer to section S4 and the definition of a "Split Service Brake System" which includes a statement that a failed sub-system, quote "shall not impair the operation of any other sub-system".

Our interpretation of the expression "impair" is "reduce (Illegible Word) prescribed effective level", and that same implied level is quantified under requirements S.5.1.1. Partial Failure and S.5.1.3. In-operative Brake Power Assist Unit. Both the latter clauses call for the same level of performance i.e. stopping distances from a vehicle speed of 60 m.p.h. without exceeding a pedal force of 150 lbs. Vehicle Cars Trucks<10000 lbs. trucks>10000 lbs. Stopping 456' 517' 613' distance (.263g) (.233g) (.195g)

We would like to show, with reference to the attached description of the Dual Brake Booster, that with a power failed situation or rear brakes failed, we have the same residual secondary braking i.e. the front brakes, being activated purely by muscular effort of the driver, with chamber (a) acting as a conventional master cylinder. The designed performance for this condition in the case of a 2000 Kg (4,400 lbs) gross weight vehicle would be .3g for a pedal force 71 lbs (316N). This meets the prescribed performance tabled above.

Should a failure occur in the other sub-system (Illegible Words) mechanically by further movement of the pedal (approximately 12 mm.) for full output to "knee point". Fluid under pressure is delivered by the valve in proportion to pedal effort. Again in this case, the system is tuned to provide an acceptable performance. The attached figures show a retardation of .3g for 52 lbs (231N) pedal force, which is well within the prescribed limits.

2

(Illegible Text)

Yours faithfully,

W. M. PAGE -- Senior Engineer - Systems Engineering

[Attachments Omitted.]

ID: nht90-4.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-10-89 from W. Shapiro to S.P. Wood (OCC 3848); Also attached to drawing of child booster seat (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that t erm is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 poun ds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children wh o weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We woul d also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner m anual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specif ic requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e.,

provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs f irst ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vul nerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S3.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small chil dren. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

ID: 86-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler House of Representatives 1607 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Fiedler:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between different seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ("lap and shoulder belts") in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, He believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.

As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and school buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called :"compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses by constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, hand improved seat spacing and performance.

Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed his concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt Systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington D.C.

Dec. 20 1985

Nancy Miller Department of Transportation

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

M. C.

Please Return ATTN: Louise Gessford 1607 Longworth

Rep Fiedler

Why do the car manufacturers have different seat belt configurations, with the belt in the front seats going around the waist and over the shoulder and the back seat only around waist, some have front seat only around waist?

Why do the city buses not have seat belts for the passengers? Also school buses?

We the people are the testing area for the car industry.

These are a few of the negative views after talking to many people about new seat belt law.

Have they thought about people who have had heart surgery, and other people having surgery who still have very tender areas, also women with large breasts, the only relief is to ride with your hand under the belt in these irritating areas in order to obey the law. This seems quite stupid.

Summation: There definitely should be more research done on this problem: either have the car manufacturers install waist belts in all cars or resort to air bags.

Will await your reply

William Griffith 815 492-5432

ID: 21068.ztv

Mr. Seymour Hanks
Rt. 1 Box 144
Medora, IL 62063

Dear Mr. Hanks:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1999, asking for our views on the issues that you raise.

In the first case that concerns you, Sun International Racing Corp. is reported as importing and certifying for sale in the United States niche cars otherwise unavailable, such as the Renault Sport Spider and Lotus Elise. You have asked whether either car can "be disassembled overseas imported into the U.S. and re-assembled by Sun Int'l as a complete vehicle?"

The Renault and Lotus have never been certified by their original manufacturers as complying with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Nevertheless, uncertified vehicles may be imported for resale under certain conditions specified by 49 U.S.C. 30141 and 49 CFR Part 593. These vehicles may be imported if, as is the case here, "there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle [and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides that] the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1)(B), and "the vehicle is imported by a registered importer" (Section 30146(a)(2)). We make these decisions either on our own initiative, or upon the petition of the manufacturer or a "registered importer" (RI). RIs are entities that we have recognized as being capable of performing conformance work and are the only entities permitted to import nonconforming vehicles for resale after conformance to the FMVSS.

Thus, a RI could import nonconforming vehicles (either assembled or disassembled), provided they are covered by a NHTSA conformance capability decision, and provided that the RI conforms and certifies conformance of the vehicles before sale to a member of the public. However, we have made no such conformance capability decision with respect to either the Renault or the Lotus, and thus a RI could not legally import either the Renault or the Lotus for resale. The vehicles, however, could be imported temporarily, as provided by 49 CFR Part 591, for purposes other than resale, such as for participation in competitive racing events.

In the second case, you refer to an article listing Ameritech as the manufacturer of a U.S. version of the McLaren F1. You have asked if your understanding is correct, that the vehicle must be imported through DOT's RI program and EPA's independent commercial importer (ICI) program.

As I explained in my answer to your first question, a non-conforming vehicle imported for resale must have been the subject of a conformance capability decision, imported by a RI, and then be brought into conformity with our standards by the RI. Ameritech, which was not a RI, entered several McLaren F1s into a "foreign trade zone," modified and certified them to U.S. standards, and entered them as "Ameritech" vehicles. All these actions took place before we were aware of them. Properly, the vehicles should not have been imported in the absence of a conformance capability determination under Part 593, and then only through the RI program. We have directed Ameritech to cease such importations and have advised the U.S. Customs Service that it should not allow them.

You have asked "who is the manufacturer of the vehicles in Case 1 and Case 2."

A "manufacturer" of motor vehicles is defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) both as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, as well as a person who imports motor vehicles for resale. In both cases, the vehicles were originally manufactured in one stage. Therefore, we consider the entity that assembled these vehicles to be the manufacturer, that is to say, Lotus, Renault, and McLaren. I note also that any person importing these motor vehicles for resale is also a "manufacturer" for Federal safety purposes.

I would like to note here that the vehicle import laws have been amended since the articles that concern you were written. We are now authorized to allow permanent entry of nonconforming vehicles for "show or display." Under regulations we adopted in mid-1999, an importer for "show or display" must demonstrate that the vehicle is of technological or historical interest. If we approve an entry on this basis, the vehicle may not accumulate more than 2,500 miles a year on its odometer until it is 25 years old.

Your final question is whether "a completed motor vehicle [can] be disassembled then shipped into the U.S. as parts, and then re-assembled here in the U.S. as a motor vehicle listing a different manufacturer than the original manufacturer."

A disassembled vehicle that was not certified by its original manufacturer as being in compliance with our standards is subject to the same import restrictions as an assembled one; i.e., it must have been the subject of a conformance capability determination, and be imported, reassembled, and brought into compliance by a RI, which must certify its conformance with our standards. In this event, there are two manufacturers of the vehicle, the original manufacturer whose marque name should appear on the vehicle, and the RI, which, under 49

U.S.C. 30102(a)(5), is a "manufacturer" for purposes of notification and remedy in the event that a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the reassembled vehicle.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202)-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.2/22/2000

ID: nht92-9.43

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- President, Prospects Corporation

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- Legal Counsel, Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request of An Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A39; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have reviewed the FMVSS 118 rule published on April 16, 1991. It gives car manufacturers and automotive suppliers with substantial design flexibility to improve the vehicle power window and sunroof operation.

Prospects Corporation has developed a window/roof system (AEM: Automobile Environment Management) that provides many useful new features to help consumers to solve several of their automotive problems. One of the features is that the system can close all windows in a parked vehicle when unexpected rain occurs to avoid water damage.

Prospects is currently marketing this system to automobile manufacturers. The initial reception in the OEM market is very positive. However, a few OEM customers have asked a question regarding the AEM system complying with the FMVSS 118 rule. Their concern is that there is no "automatic" word in the section S5 (a) of the FMVSS 118 rule. In order for them to feel comfortable using the AEM system, a written interpretation from your office is necessary to clarify the AEM rain sensing close with pressureless anti-pinch safety feature complies with FMVSS 118.

The AEM system has a PRESSURELESS infrared anti-pinch safety protection feature. If the obstruction is detected before the automatic close, the system will refuse to activate the close operation. If an obstruction is detected while the window or roof is in closing operation, the system will stop and reverse open the window at least 200 mm immediately. If the safety sensing mechanism malfunctions, the system will disable the rain close feature. Because of the photo sensing technology, there is no pressure force is applied on the objection, therefore, the resistive force will be much less than 22 pounds, and in most cases, there is no extra resistive force.

The section S5 (a) of FMVSS 118 says: ".... may close: (1) Upon the one-time activation of a locking system on the exterior of the vehicle, (2) Upon the one-time activation of any remote actuation device, or (3) Upon continuous activation of any remote actuation device capable of closing the power window, partition or roof panel from a distance of more than 20 feet from the vehicle."

From the function definition, the AEM rain sensing close feature falls in the S5 (a)(1) description. Assuming a vehicle is equipped with the AEM system, and the driver decided to close the windows if unexpected rain occurs on a hot summer day during parking, so that he selected the Automatic Mode of AEM (the locking system, its control switch is on the dashboard or door panel). When rain drops triggered the AEM moisture sensor, the system closed the

windows with one-time activation. In this case, we interpret that this driver is CLOSING the vehicle windows by using a "locking system" (AEM) on the exterior of the vehicle, per S5 (a) (1) of FMVSS 118.

The AEM system brings an innovation to benefit consumers: they now have a choice of venting the hot air out of their cars in the appropriate parking environment, and close the windows when it becomes necessary (rain occurs). Because of the requirement for clarification from our OEM customers, we need your office to provide a written reply as soon as possible. Your earliest reply will significantly help this innovation become available to public consumers.

I am looking forward to your written reply.

Attachment

PROSPECTS CORPORATION AEM System Active Infrared Sensing Safety Protection Mechanism

September 20, 1991

The AEM system provides a safety feature that will ensure the vehicle window close operations: - Automatic close due to rain sensing; - Security close when the ignition key is removed; - "l-touch" express close while driving.

The safety mechanism includes several infrared sensors and emitors that will detect the upper window frame areas for obstructions just before and during the above close operations.

Before the AEM system commands the windows to do one of the above three close operations, the infrared device will perform the obstruction detection function. If an object is detected between a particular window frame and the window glass, the AEM system will not issue the close operation common to that window.

If the pre-checking has passed, the windows will begin to express close. The infrared devices will continue to work during the window closing process. Any point, if an object is detected between an upper window frame and the upward moving window glass, the AEM system will immediately stop that window and reverse it to open 200mm regardless of whether the window glass reaches the object or not.

If for any reason the infrared safety devices malfunction, the AEM system has the capability to perform a diagnostic test. It will detect the device malfunction on the particular window(s) and then disable the Express close, Security close, and Automatic close functions for that window(s). Therefore, the potential injury will be completely eliminated with this strict safety algorithm.

The same principle is being applied to the sunroof operation to eliminate the potential safety liability from the manufacturer.

Attached are 5 drawing diagrams to detail the method and mechanism that will ensure the safe operation with the advanced AEM system.

** (Prospects Corporation has filed a U.S. patent application for this device)

(Drawings, photos and text omitted.)

ID: nht73-2.34

DATE: 11/07/73

FROM: R.B. DYSON -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN G. WOMACK

TO: Missouri Automobile Dealers Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1973, concerning the legality of disconnecting seat belt interlocks.

The interlock is a required item of safety equipment that must be operable on any new car when it is sold or offered for sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. After an interlock equipped car is sold, however, the purchaser may disconnect the interlock, without violating the Act, by virtue of section 108(b)(1), which exempts transactions after the first purchase of the vehicle.

If a dealer offers to disconnect an interlock as an inducement to the sale of the vehicle, it is our opinion that a violation of the act occurs even though the actual disconnection may take place after delivery of the vehicle. If, on the other hand, the subject of the interlock is not discussed during the sale and the buyer subsequently requests disconnection on the basis of his experience with the vehicle, the dealer would not violate the Act if he disconnected the interlock.

Although a dealer does not violate the act by suggesting that the buyer go somewhere else to have the interlock disconnected, I am sure you appreciate the troublesome consequences such advice may bring for the buyer if the resulting disconnection is carelessly performed.

YOURS TRULY,

October 10, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

As you can see from the enclosed article of the October 1, 1973 issue of Automotive News, it is reported by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, that he received a letter August 20, 1973 from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs, in which he states:

"Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards (safety belt interlocks). The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

Dr. Gregory, many of my dealers have called wanting to know if the report by Mr. Carter is the truth. Can you tell me?

1. Is it a violation for my dealers after they make the sale to disconnect the interlock system or make it inoperative?

2. Is it against the law for a dealer to tell a purchaser of a 1974 car that he can go some where else and get it disconnected?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Ralph J. Kalberlon Executive Vice President Joe Machens President

cc: David Castles, Castles-Wilson Buick Casey Meyers-Casey Meyers Ford, Inc.

in the letterbox

Who can tamper?

On Page 1, of the Sept. 10 issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, appears a story by J. Donald Williamson, "First Buyers Turned Off by Interlocks."

The second and third paragraphs of your story read as follows:

"Forbidden by law to remove or tamper with the new system, dealers resorted to their own ingenuity to allay customer gripes and many and varied were the suggestions.

"Generally, stringent objections were met by suggesting the customer might stop at a service station on the way home where mechanics not hampered by federal edict could render the system inoperative."

After studiously searching for an answer to this question we finally received a letter dated Aug. 22, from Congressman Dante B. Fascell in which he enclosed a letter dated Aug. 20, 1973, he received from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs. The third paragraph reads as follows:

"In the case of starter interlock safety belts, they are required, at the time of purchase, in all passenger cars manufactured on or after Aug. 15, 1973. Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards. The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

It appears that the ruling from the U.S. Department of Transportation is directly contrary to the information conveyed in your story.

This matter is of such importance to all dealers we think it imperative that you retract our statement.

If by chance there is a subsequent ruling from the administrator, then we would be grateful if you would immediately furnish us with the latest release -- Edgar Jones, general manager, Nolan - Brown Motors, Inc., Miami.

Motors safety experts (AMC models were the only ones involved in the story).

As is pointed out in Reader Jones' letter, the law appears to permit a dealer to modify the interlock after the car is sold.

Dealers should keep in mind, however, that it is clearly the intent of the law that nobody tamper with the interlock. AMC people are obviously taking a supercautious stance.

Furthermore, a House bill currently under consideration would ban anyone, including the owner, from tampering with any safety item.

ID: nht95-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Merridy R. Gottlieb

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10723)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles w ithout obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowa nces to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should prov ide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applic able FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standar d No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic saf ety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperat ive" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the d ynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

ID: nht95-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispe nsation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. T he removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of cra shes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the a gency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconne cting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decisi on.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohib ition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on th e safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht67-1.2

DATE: 06/19/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR. -- M.D. FOR LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, NHTSA

TO: E. W. Kintner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Your Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

This is in response to your letter of May 29 on behalf of Minnesota Automotive, Inc., requesting an interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 such as would allow the installation of a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake system as a supplement to the friction type system required by that Standard.

Standard No. 105, by its own terms, applies to passenger cars and not to any other category of motor vehicle. As to passenger care either of the statements set forth in your letter in correct and you may so inform your client. This Standard does not proclude or prohibit the installation of one-way check valve hydraulic brake systems on passenger care which, of course, must be also equipped with parking brakes meeting the requirement.[Illegible Word] $ 4.3 of that Standard.

Since this interpretation is fairly obvious it is not suitable for publication in the Federal Register.

Thank you for the support expressed in your letter.

Sincerely,

May 29, 1967

Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Request for Interpretation -- Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105

Dear Mr. Bridwell:

Minnesota Automotive, Inc., which I serve as counsel, has authorized me to submit a Request for Interpretation of Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 105 to your office for clarification of the permissible use of brake lock safety devices as a parking brake system, in addition to the safety equipment required by that standard.

Minnesota Automotive, located in Mankato, Minnesota, manufactures a line of hydraulic brake products, including a one-way check valve hydraulic parking brake which connects into the primary braking system hydraulic unit and shoes. This device, without interfering with normal brake service, will fit any vehicle on the road having a hydraulic braking system, and when actuated will effectively convert the system into a powerful, reliable parking brake lock. Where a dual service brake is employed, two of these devices can be used, one geared to each hydraulic system. These devices serve as important supplements to the standard parking brake system of the vehicle.

The hydraulic brake lock is designed to meet the needs of heavy duty and high frequency parking brake usage. I might mention parenthetically that the brake locking devices manufactured by Minnesota Automotive are no longer under patent; other automotive equipment manufacturers have marketed and are marketing safety brake lock products using the one way check valve principle.

Problems have arisen in the marketing of these safety products, particularly with respect to vehicles currently subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of that agency's safety regulation on parking brakes. Specifically, Section 193.41 of the ICC Motor Carrier Safety Regulations provides that the "parking brake or brakes, shall . . . remain in the applied condition . . . despite . . . leakage of any kind. . . ." Since the brake locking device in connected into the service brake hydraulic system and consequently will not function if there is leakage in the latter, many potential users of the device have construed the ICC regulation as prohibiting the use of such a device, even when installed in addition to a parking brake system meeting the requirements of the regulation.

A potential difficulty is again presented by Paragraph S4.3 of Initial Standard No. 105, as well as related standards which may be developed by the Bureau in the future. Standard No. 105 requires a "parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means . . . "Although we would agree that neither this language nor the above noted standard necessarily implies that safety locks are not permitted, the marketing resistance based on the existing ICC regulation indicates the need for clarification in this area.

In view of this experience, we respectfully request an interpretation as to whether Initial Standard can be construed as follows:

1. Paragraph S1 of Initial Standard No. 105, which sets out the purpose and scope of the standard, is not to be construed as prohibiting the use of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in hydraulic brake systems, in addition toparking brakes which meet the requirements of Paragraph S4.3: or alternatively,

2. The requirement of Paragraph S4.3 that a parking system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means be provided does not preclude the installation of hydraulic holding devices, such as one way check valves, in addition to the mechanical parking brakes.

Because of the desirability for all manufacturers producing these safety devices of an official position establishing the propriety of using such one way check valve brake locks, we further request that any interpretation to this effect be published in the Federal Register.

On behalf of Minnesota Automotive, I want to take this opportunity to assure you of our complete support of your efforts in attempting to meet the challenging goal of developing meaningful vehicle safety standards. We congratulate you on the significant progress made thusfar.

Should you require any additional information with respect to our Request for Interpretation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Earl W. Kintner -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN