ID: 1983-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Stephen D. Aarons Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer Department of the Army United States Field Station Augsburg APO New York 09458

Dear Captain Aarons:

This responds to your recent letter concerning an Army jeep which was not equipped with safety belts. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, applies to U.S. government vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, effective January 1, 1968, requires all passenger vehicles to be equipped with safety belts. This standard applies to government motor vehicles, generally. However, 49 CFR 571.7(c) specifically provides the following exception:

"(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."

This means that Safety Standard No. 208 would not be applicable to an Army jeep if the Army contract with the vehicle manufacturer did not specify that the vehicle was to be equipped with safety belts.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LAEJA 6 June 1983

SUBJECT: Government Vehicles without Seatbelts

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Dear NHTSA

This inquiry has been written on behalf of an emergency ward nurse stationed at Fort Gordon Georgia, not to represent US government interests.

When examining a patient involved in an accident while inside a government jeep, she discovered that no seat belts had ever been installed in the vehicle. The victim's commander further alleged that his situation is not at all uncommon in the Army, Standard 208 (effective 1 July 1971), as you know, requires restraint belts for passenger vehicles. How does current guidelines effect previously manufactured vehicles, and what regulations if any, apply to US government motor vehicles?

We appreciate your guidance on the rules which apply to this dangerous condition.

STEPHEN D. AARONS Captain, JAGC Legal Assistance Officer

CF:

Director, Automotive Consumer Action Program 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, Virginia 22102

Center for Auto Safety 1233 Dupont Circle Bldg Washington, DC 20036

ID: nht73-3.47

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mike Pescoe, Attorney; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Goldberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1973, forwarding to me a copy of the preface to your forthcoming paper on the development of Standard No. 213, and asking a few questions which we have already discussed over the phone.

With respect to the preface, it is essentially accurate, at least sufficiently so for the purpose for which it is intended.

The questions you've asked are repeated below, followed by our answers.

1. What gives credibility to and what reduces credibility of comments filed with Docket 2-15? Are the comments of some organizations given more credence than others?

Each comment to the docket is assumed to be of equal credibility, that is, we assume each is offered in good faith, and based upon the writer's legitimate beliefs and interests. The agency evaluates each submission on its own merits.

2. Do non-separating 3-point belts present a problem for usage of current child restraint systems?

Our understanding is that child seats can be used with 3-point belts. These belt systems do utilize one member that is essentially similar to the traditional lap belt. We understand the shoulder portions of these belts can be adjusted so as not to prevent installation of the child seat, by either placing that belt section in front of or behind the child seat. We have not received any information from the public that these belts are in fact difficult to use with child seats. If we do we will certainly look into the matter thoroughly.

3. Has NHTSA or will NHTSA be cooperating with JPMA on some kind of market survey?

The NHTSA has forwarded a list of suggested questions, which are also in the docket. We do not expect our contribution to include more than recommending that these questions be asked.

4. To what extent is rulemaking determined by comments and by internal direction?

This certainly depends on the issues involved. For the most part, initial decisions are made by the agency, with modifications resulting from comments received. However, comments may affect some issues more than others. In Standard No. 213, for example, much impetus for a dynamic test has been created by comments.

We've recently amended the standard, based on two outstanding notices (September 30, 1970; April 10, 1971). In case you haven't seen the amendments, I have enclosed a copy.

ENCLS.

ID: aiam3779

Dear Mr. Lobascio: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which yo questioned a prior interpretation of Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release* (49 CFR S 571.217). You noted that you disagree with an August 18, 1983 interpretation addressed to Champion Home Builders, which stated that doors may be considered as emergency exits for the purposes of section S5.2.1, provided that those doors meet the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.; You stated in your letter that you agree that doors may be counted a emergency exits, but only if the requirements of S5.2.1.1 are met. In other words, the only time doors can be counted as emergency exits in your opinion is when a bus has at least one side door for every three designated seating positions. That statement reflects an incorrect interpretation of the requirements of section S5.2.; Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 sets forth requirements for th provision of emergency exits in buses. Section S5.2.1 contains the requirements applicable to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. This is the group of vehicles your letter addresses. Section S5.2.1 requires that all buses provide side exits *and* at least one rear exit (a roof exit may be substituted for the rear exit). S5.2.1 places no limit on the types of openings that may be used as exits. As noted in my August 18 interpretation, the agency has never stated that doors could not be counted as side exits, provided that they met all other requirements applicable to emergency exits. Section S5.2.1.1 allows, as an alternative to complying with the requirements for side exits and a rear exit, the exclusive use of side doors as emergency exits. Under section S5.2.1.1, buses may be equipped with one side door for every three designated seating positions. This section in no way limits the availability of side doors as side exits under section S5.2.1, it merely adds a special case for buses not equipped with a rear exit or roof exit.; You went on to state your opinion that a particular manufacturer's bu does not comply with the requirements of section S5.2, because the door designated as an emergency exit does not satisfy the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I am sure that you understand it is impossible for this agency to determine, based on photographs and a description of the bus, whether a bus certified as complying with those requirements in fact does not comply. Our enforcement personnel will specifically check one of these buses to ensure that they do comply with Standard No. 217.; I thank you for your efforts to ensure the safety of bus passengers and hope that you will contact us again if you believe that some model of bus fails to comply with the requirements of a Federal standard. The cooperation of State officials is essential to this agency's efforts to improve safety on the public roads.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-4.46

DATE: 01/18/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lewis S. Hollins, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dr. Gregory has asked me to respond to your client's request for approval of the "Hollins system" interlock device. In an earlier version, the system was the basis of a petition for an alternative to Standard 208's seatbelt interlock system. That petition was denied by the NHTSA (38 FR 9830, April 20, 1973, and 38 FR 16072, June 20, 1973) as was a petition for reconsideration of our decision (38 FR 33110, November 30, 1973).

Standard 208 establishes performance requirements, but the NHTSA does not approve or disapprove specific equipment designs. Any design can be used to satisfy Standard 208 which fulfills the performance requirements. We have considered Mr. Hollins' proposal and, as set our in the Federal Register, have determined that his requested changes to the performance requirements are not justified. We feel that our consideration of Mr. Hollins' petition has been full and complete, and that further petitions on this subject will be repetitious within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 553.35(c).

SINCERELY,

December 26, 1973

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

Re: Docket No. 69-7 OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION Notice 30

Based upon the substance of the text of Notice 30, my client Jesse R. Hollins, entirely without prejudice and as evidence of his desire to be cooperative, has indicated his willingness to alter his system so that:

(a) The Hollins warning system will not function when the engine is operating and the transmission is in "Park" for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, or in "Neutral" for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions (S7.3).

(b) The Hollins system will be augmented so as to provide for the interlock feature for the outboard (right) front passenger's seat (S7.4).

I am accordingly so authorized to submit the above to you as an amendment and request prompt acknowledgment and approval of the Hollins system.

This request is submitted within the prescribed 30 days from the date of publication of Docket No. 69-7; Notice 30 in the Federal Register (Vol. 38 No. 230) Friday, November 30, 1973.

Ten copies are enclosed herewith.

Sincerely

LEWIS S. HOLLINS

ID: nht94-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: Gary Blouse -- V. P. Engineering, Fitting Image

TO: Office of Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO GARY BLOUSE (A43; VSA 102 (4)

TEXT: Dear Chief Console,

Fitting Image was founded about twelve years ago with the commitment to engineering excellence and to manufacturing the highest quality precision plastic products.

Our latest product under development consideration is a bag holder for the interior of vehicles. This is designed to attach to the head rest of the seats. The hanger is on the back side of the seat allowing hanging storage ability, especially for plasti c grocery bags. Please see enclosed sketch for further explaination.

Are there any after market equipment standards with which this product would need to comply?

We look forward to your prompt response.

We do request confidentially on this matter since the item has not been patented yet. (Drawing omitted.)

ID: 86-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86

FROM: DAVID M. CIMA

TO: LEGAL COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: VISIBLE DISPLAY TO AUTOMOBILE DRIVER OF STATUS OF TRANSMISSION(PARK, REVERSE, NEUTRAL, DRIVE, LOW . . . ALSO KNOWN AS "PRNDL INDICATOR" IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/30/86 EST, TO DAVID M.CIMA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (3) STANDARD 102

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I have been told that STANDARD for stipulates that when a driver gets behind the wheel the "setting" of the transmission at that time will be visibly evident before he puts the key into the ignition.

Normally, there is a mechanical linkage to a "needle" that gives the indication. But with newer technologies like light emitting diodes and liquid crystal displays, etc., that same indication can be given in the instrument cluster, perhaps even more clearly than with traditional approaches.

Some auto manufacturers are considering (or may already have done) putting a weight switch in the seat which would be activated when the driver sits down and turn on a lighted PRNDL display.

I, on the other hand, am working with another technology that would sense the driver's movement as he slid into the seat(by sensing his infrared radiation) and activate the display.

But, and this is the reason for my writing to you, using the type of infrared sensor that is on the market today, I would get only one electronic "blip" when the driver entered. Then the display would be activated with a simple timer that would keep it lit for some predetermined period, say 5 minutes. However, if the driver entered his car with his lunch and spent 20 minutes eating and then proceeded to insert key and drive away, the PRNDL indicator would have been off 15 minutes before the man started his car.

As an extreme case, someone goes to a drive-in movie and may be in the same spot for 2 hours before restarting their car.

In short, does the law say that the PRNDL indicator must be visible to the driver when he enters the car? Or must it be visible whenever anyone is behind the wheel? (Naturally, in the case of someone in the car with the engine idling, the indicator would be lit.)

If the regulation states that the indicator must be "visible" no matter what the situation or the duration of time the person is behind the wheel, I still may be able to make the infrared approach work--but it will be much more difficult.

As you well know, I would be foolish to work on or offer something that didn't meet the letter of the law--and no manufacturer would accept it anyways. Thus I would appreciate whatever clarification of the situation that you could give me.

I truly appreciate your efforts.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0302

Dear Mr. Nakajima: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms regarding positioning of the anthropomorphic test devices for use in the crashes described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; I am enclosing a copy of the newly revised version of the standard a well as an accompanying press release.; In regard to your specific inquiry, Standard No. 208 does not contai specifications for the alignment of the dummy's head once positioned in the vehicle. Paragraphs S3.1.11(b) through (e) specify the procedure for positioning the dummy in the vehicle seat. If the procedures in S8.1.11 are followed as specified, the dummy's neck and head may actually be inclined because of contact with the roof or other vehicle components.; Thank you for your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: 77-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertolini Engineering Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 7, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed remanufacture of 573 trailer chassis would constitute the manufacture of new chassis which would be required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other applicable regulation.

According to the remanufacture proposal you describe, Seatrain Lines will be the user of the chassis both before and after the remanufacture, although it will no longer own any of them. Fruehauf Corporation will become the owner of all of the chassis, whereas it currently owns none.

The NHTSA regulations pertaining to the remanufacture of chassis are found in 49 CFR Part 571.7. In that regulation the agency states that the chassis must be owned or leased by the same entity both before and after remanufacture. Since Seatrain is the current user of the vehicles (as owner and lessee) and will continue to be the user after remanufacture (as a lessee), it appears that the remanufactured vehicle will not be one that requires certification with motor vehicle safety standards.

It should be pointed out that if the transaction you describe for achieving remanufacture becomes a large-scale practice in the trailer industry, the agency will be compelled to reconsider the meaning of "manufacture" under its regulations.

SINCERELY,

BERTOLINI ENGINEERING CO., INC.

March 7, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

ATTN: Karen Dyson

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 4, 1977, I would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed remanufacture scheduled for immediate production.

The facts are as follows: Seatrain Lines is a container steamship operator who operates many thousands of chassis in the United States. They have in service now 573 chassis which they would like to have remanufactured into updated pieces of equipment by Bertolini Engineering Company, Inc. The reason for this move is that they have found that the old frames are not worthwhile maintaining any longer because of their inability to stand the gaff of their day to day operations.

Furthermore, these chassis will not meet Association of American Railroads Piggyback Regulations which are due to become effective in January 1985. However, the running gear on these chassis is sound and shows very little wear and usage, and will be retained in the remanufactured vehicle. Of these 573 chassis, Seatrain is the owner of 300, which they had purchased on a conditional sales contract. The remaining 273 are owned by Thriftway Leasing Company who is leasing the equipment to Seatrain. Seatrain would like all 573 chassis leased back to them by Thriftway Leasing Company.

Thriftway Leasing Company in turn has come to Fruehauf Corporation for financial assistance to finance the package. Fruehauf Corporation therefore proposes to buy all 573 chassis, turn them over to Bertolini Engineering Company for remanufacture, and then lease them back to Thriftway who in turn will sublease them to Seatrain.

It should be pointed out that Seatrain will be the user before and after the remanufacture and the Fruehauf Corporation will be the owner before and after remanufacture.

Also, the Vehicle Identification Number will be carried through after remanufacture so as to maintain its original identity.

This procedure, we feel, is totally in accord with the requirements of Docket No. 75-9, Notice of the Federal Register, July 1, 1976 and we therefore request your concurrence that these chassis will not be considered newly manufactured and will not have to be certified as being in compliance with MVSS 121 or other applicable safety standards established subsequent to their original date of manufacture.

Please let me have your opinion on this as soon as possible inasmuch as we are ready to go into production on these units and are merely awaiting your interpretation.

William A. Bertolini President

ID: aiam0562

Dear Mr. Frank: In response to your letter of December 9, 1971, it is correct tha Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' applies only to motor vehicles (passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses) manufactured on or after September 1, 1972. The standard does not apply to replacement or aftermarket seat covers.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-3.32

DATE: 02/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, concerning the application of Standard No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems", to auxiliary throttles mounted inside or outside of the cab and used exclusively while the vehicle is in a stationary position to insure proper engine speed for the operation of pumps, elevating platforms, and similar equipment. Since the definition of "idle position" was amended to provide for the use of throttle positioners in 37 F.R. 20035 (September 23, 1972), the auxiliary throttles described are not subject to the requirements of the standard.