ID: nht94-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 19, 1994

FROM: Glyn Thomas -- Thomas Tire

TO: Walter Myers -- Department Of Transportation

TITLE: Re: 19 CFR 12.80

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO GLYN THOMAS (REDBOOK (6); PART 591; STD 109; STD. 119) AND 6/13/81 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD (STD 119)

TEXT: I am writing to you after our telephone conversation of today's date. This is a very urgent matter and I am writing to ask for a waiver to be allowed to continue to import truck casings into the U.S.A. for the purpose of retreading.

Some Japanese casings do not have the D.O.T. marking on the side wall. To allow for this, tires with less than 2/32" and being imported solely for the purpose of retreading are allowed entry.

However, my point is that tires with less than 2/32" tread remaining are usually not of sufficiently good quality.

I maintain that a declaration signed by the importer and confirmed by the receiving retread shop, at the time of entry, stating that the casings are being imported solely for the purpose of retreading, could [Illegible Word] solve this problem.

If this is not done, then it would badly effect the total number of casings available for U.S. retread shops and definitely effect production.

Is it possible to mail or fax me immediately, a waiver to this effect. Thus allowing the continued smooth import of casings.

ID: nht92-1.49

DATE: 12/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE MALBON -- NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS AND RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

COPYEE: JEFF LAXAGUE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-18-81 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 17362.nhf

Mr. James MacDonald
MAC's Lift Gate Inc.
2715 Seaboard Lane
Long Beach, CA 90805

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This responds to your February 20, 1998, letter requesting information regarding the modification of a used 1998 full size Dodge van previously purchased by your customer who is a paraplegic. I regret the delay in responding. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explain that you need to install a power seat base in the front passenger seat to accommodate your client's disability. You plan to attach the vehicle's right front passenger seat, which was manufactured by California Comfort, to the power seat base. You also state that you do not believe that the modification will compromise the performance of the vehicle's seat and do not believe that you would be violating any laws. However, California Comfort, the seat manufacturer, is concerned that this modification could affect its legal liability with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Since you (MAC's Lift Gate) will be performing the modifications to this particular vehicle, it is your responsibility, rather than California Comfort's, to ensure compliance with the "make inoperative prohibition" of 49 U.S.C. 30122. If you modify the vehicle independent of California Comfort (e.g., without the authorization or approval of that company), California Comfort would not be responsible for the modifications you make to the vehicle.

We would like to explain for background information that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.⁽¹⁾ Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before the products can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, 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 applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses which modify motor vehicles (such as MAC's Lift Gate) to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. There is no procedure by which repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, if they comply with the limitations of 30122.

We note that NHTSA has stated in the past that it is willing to exercise discretion in enforcing the make inoperative prohibition to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We caution, however, that this discretion has only been considered for necessary modifications. You note that you believe you can modify the vehicle without violating the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. If it is possible for you to install the power seat without degrading the safety equipment of the van, you must do so.

Because you are involved with modifying vehicles for persons with disabilities, we bring to your attention that NHTSA is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities. NHTSA is considering setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition, but only for certain standards and under certain conditions. The proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. For example, one such principle may be that only necessary modifications would be permitted. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/6/98

1. Manufacturers, including California Comfort, are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility would not be affected by your planned modification of the vehicle.

ID: 8002

Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005

Dear Mr. Malbon:

This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229

ref:571#117#119 d.12/11/92

ID: 1982-2.36

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is to follow-up on your conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the armrest requirement of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific question concerned the application of section 5.3.1(c) of the standard to an armrest attached to a door. The inboard side of the armrest consists of two vertical surfaces, an upper one and a lower one. The upper surface extends 3 mm closer to the center of the vehicle than does the lower surface. You stated that the two surfaces when viewed in side elevation, i.e., from the vantage point of the door latch or door hinges, together provide more than 2 inches of vertical height within the pelvic impact area. You also asked if section 5.3.1(c) set any limits on the material used for armrests.

Section 5.3.1(c) of the standard provides that:

Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Section 5.3.1(c) does not set any radius of curvature or height limitation on armrest surfaces. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. Section 5.3.1(c) also does no specify any limits on the materials that may be used in an armrest. Obviously, such surfaces must be designed carefully to ensure that the armrest does no concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht67-1.23

DATE: 08/10/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Thermo King Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1967, regarding the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to accessories which are purchased for installation after procurement of the car and, in particular, Safety Standard No. 201.

Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," applies only to vehicles as originally equipped and does not apply to accessories such as "after market" auto air conditioners. However, the public would certainly benefit from the maximum degree of conformance that may be feasible on after market installations.

It is sincerely regretted that a written response to your first request was not received by you and trust that you were not inconvenienced.

March 14, 1967

Dr. William Haddon Department of Commerce

As manufacturers of "after market" auto air conditioners, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as passed on January 23, 1967, is of concern to us. Does this Safety Act apply to manufacturers of accessories which are purchased by the car owner after he receives the car? The case in point is a car owner which purchases an "add-on" auto air conditioner; must this accessory comply with Standard 201?

Recently one of our Engineers (Mr. D. Gregerson) contacted your office (Clayboure) and received verbal "no" answers to the above questions. Your aides mentioned that this could be confirmed by requesting it by letter. We would appreciate this confirmation when convenient for you.

Very truly yours,

L. L. Willis Vice President - Engineering

ID: 86-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Hutton, Jr. -- Curtis, Bamburg and Crosse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert A. Hutton, Hr., Esq. Curtis, Bamburg & Crossen Attorneys at Law 230 South Bemiston St. Louis, MO 63105

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. According to your letter, while braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward, not locking, causing your client to lose control of the car and crash into a guardrail. You asked for information about inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, particularly for seat backs and belts in that car, and references to government safety standards. You specifically asked whether there was a standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The of our standards are revelant to inertial-lock mechanisms.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for inertial-locking safety belts. Section S4.3(j) specifies the following:

(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g. . . .

Thus, for safety belts, there is a specific requirement for the maximum distance the webbing may extend before locking under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR S571.207), specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats and seat backs. See section S4.3. The standard requires that such seats be equipped with self-locking restraining devices, and specifies both static force and acceleration performance requirements which the restraining devices must meet once engaged. However, the standard does not specify either the load at which an inertial-locking seatback must lock or the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

In response to your request for information that relates to the particular car involved in your client's accident, He have enclosed a computer printout listing relevant vehicle owner reports which allege problems similar to that identified by your letter.

I hope this information is helpful. There is no fee for the information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 5, 1985

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Re: Inertial-locking Seatbelts and Seatbacks.

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. The car is equipped with inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks on the front seats. While braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward -- it did not lock -- causing my client to lose control of the car and crashing into a guardrail.

I an interested i any information you may have concerning inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, and particularly seatbacks and belts for that particular car. Any reference to government safety standards, including any standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load would be extremely helpful.

If there is any fee involved in compiling this information, please advise.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hutton, Jr.

RAH/h

ID: 8054

Philip E. Stern, Esquire
Rand, Algeier, Tosti & Woodruff
Attorneys at Law
Courthouse Plaza
60 Washington Street
Morristown, NJ 07960

Dear Mr. Stern:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six- inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952- 6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. David Lombardi Transportation Director Prince George's County Public Schools 13300 Old Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20702

Ms. Marsha Sailesbury Consultant Pupil Transportation State Board of Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 63777 ref:221 d.12/28/92

ID: 77-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weber Aircraft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16//88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBER J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC-1278

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting an interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be "limit loads" (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or "ultimate loads" (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).

Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.

Please contact our office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Feb. 25, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: Chief Counsel's Office

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 & 210

Ref: Telecon G. Cress and R. Nelson, 2-25-77

Our test facility has been approached by several manufacturers of vehicle seating systems. These manufacturers have requested that we test (and provide a report) to the requirements of MVSS Nos. 207 and 210. In reviewing the MVSS requirements, a question has arisen. It is on the definition or interpretation of the phrase, "shall withstand the following forces" as used in MVSS 207, Paragraph S4.2. In the aircraft industry, load or force requirements are usually designated as limit loads (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or ultimate loads (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place).

As an example, if the structure in Figure 1 (attached) were subjected to a limit load of 20 times the weight of the seat, the seat would retain its full capabilities to function. There would be no permanent deflection or degradation of the structure due to the limit load application. If the structure in Figure 1 were subjected to an ultimate load of 20 times the seat weight, the seat could assume the posture shown in Figure 2 as long as it supported the test load for from 3 to 10 seconds. The question is, "May we consider the forces specified in MVSS 207 (and also MVSS 210) as ultimate loads?"

Thank you for your assistance.

WEBER AIRCRAFT, Division of Walter Kidde & Company, Inc.

Gordon P. Cress Chief, Structures & Test

ATTACH.

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

PRE & POST TEST (LIMIT LOAD)

FIGURE 1

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

POST TEST (ULTIMATE LOAD APPLICATION)

FIGURE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht94-4.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1994

FROM: Lori A. Hawker

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Lori A. Hawker (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam;

I am proposing to manufacture a product intended for use in an infant car seat. This product or bunting fits inside the car seat. The bunting has slots big enough for the straps on the car seat to thread through the bunting and then reattached to th e car seat as per the design of the car seat.

After attaching the straps properly, the child can be placed in the car seat and the buckle fastened securely. (there is a slot in the bunting for the buckle to fit through. Because the harness is inside the bunting you can zip up the bunting around the infant. This is particularly handy for carrying the child from the house or across the parking lot at the mall to your car.

When you place the car seat in the car, the bunting does not interfere with the placement of the safety belt. You then may unzip the bunting and fold it over. The child now has soft blanket to keep them warm while safely strapped in their car seat. The bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism when properly installed.

During the winter months, when the winds are blowing the bunting keeps the child safe from the elements while being transported to and from the car. The bunting encourages the use of a car seat and discourages the unsafe use of bulky blankets.

The inner layer of the bunting (insulation) is 8 ounce Polyester Fiberfill. The shell is made from 100% cotton flannel.

I have seen a similar product made in Canada on the market. I would like to know if my product complies with the standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Could you please forward information to me as to how I may get this product approved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely;

Lori A. Hawker

Enclosure

(Drawing omitted.)