ID: nht79-4.53

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: HERBERT L. MISCH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter is in response to your letter of August 31, 1979, concerning the perceptions and realities of the safety of children in cars equipped with air bags.

On September 13, 1979, a team of senior level National Highway Traffic Safety Administration engineers and scientists visited Ford for discussions with your staff on the questions you raised in your letter. They reported to me that on the basis of their discussions, additional staff level discussions would be beneficial.

Federal regulations on automatic occupant crash protection, like all motor vehicle safety standards, are minimum requirements. Compliance with these requirements may not be sufficient to provide an adequate level of safety for all occupants under all circumstances. Manufacturers are expected to be responsible for the development, design, testing, and manufacture of safety systems in their cars that provide a level of safety that is consistent with the capability of the technology, the state of its development, and the practical constraints of motor vehicle mass production and marketing, as you indicate in your letter.

We disagree with your contention that responsibility for the protection of children, who are otherwise unrestrained and out of their normal seating position, significantly differs from the usual situation with other safety systems or other Federal requirements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered at various times adding further performance criteria to the requirements of FMVSS 208. However, the Agency is very reluctant to do so unless a substantial problem is identified that can only be addressed in this way. Such additional criteria tend to restrict innovations in designs and test procedures used by the manufacturers. They can also decrease the incentive to a manufacturer to try to achieve the safest possible systems because they freeze performance requirements, and inhibit innovation.

Ford has available to it the basic information (beyond that which is proprietary to other companies) and the resources that are available to the other automobile companies or to the government. You have substantial in-house expertise, and many independent experts and contractors are available to help assess: 1) the test protocols that are appropriate to measure the performance of restraint systems in frequent, high risk, real world situations; 2) the specific performance of Ford's air bag system; and 3) whether any modifications in the Ford system are warranted.

As we announced on Monday, October 1, 1979, in a press conference concerning General Motors' decision to postpone their 1981 introduction of air bags into production, I have appointed a special team to assess the basis of GM's decision. (A copy of my statement is enclosed.) The assessment has already begun, and will proceed for at least the next several months. This team will look at accident data and the position of occupants in cars at the time of a crash to determine the frequency and risk to vehicle occupants of various circumstances involving the restraint system. They will also assess the biomechanics and biofidelity of various surrogates used for occupants, particularly children in testing. We will keep you informed of the progress of this work as it goes forward.

We must not lose sight of the fact that air bags offer a very substantial potential for improving automobile occupant safety. The opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes to less than one half their present levels provides strong justification to commercialize these automatic restraints at the earliest practical date, provided due care has been exercised in the development and testing of systems for the variety of situations in which they will be needed.

I hope that these comments, and any assistance that our staff can provide, will be useful in resolving the questions you have about your air bag system. We also hope to see Ford as the first company to resume air bag production in the 1981 model year.

ID: nht80-1.48

DATE: 04/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Whitley & Whitley, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

Dear Mr. Whitley:

This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether the CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weighs approximately 80 pounds.

The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment for purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.

The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a location that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the license plates.

The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct some misinformation that was supplied to you on May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk. In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required to comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standards mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 8, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

We are considering manufacturing the CarVan. The CarVan is described in the enclosed resume.

Please indicate how the CarVan will be classed and be regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please note the CarVan will not slide into the car trunk but will be supported over the trunk.

I am enclosing a copy of your response to my request on a larger but similar type unit.

Sincerely,

WHITLEY & WHITLEY, INC.

William N. Whitley Vice President

WNW:Cj

The CarVan is a new light weight (80 pound) foldable gas saving recreational vehicle (RV). The unit can be attached to a standard or compact automobile trunk and meet the minimal living needs of two adults without increasing the gas comsumption of the automobile. The CarVan provides safe, secure, private space for sleeping, resting, cooking, eating, changing clothes and can be used for all day sports activities, fishing, hunting, skiing, overnight recreational or business travel.

The CarVan will appear and function (without wheels) as an extension of the car. The dimensions of the CarVan in the up position provide sufficient room for comfortable sitting, sleeping and standing, but extend the length of the car by only two feet. The unit folds down for easy road travel. The rear view mirror and regular side view mirrors of the car are functional while driving with the CarVan attached. No additional driving skills are required. Standard size garages and parking spaces may be used for car storage with the CarVan attached.

ID: nht78-1.50

DATE: 12/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Palmer Machine Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Dick Palmer Palmer Machine Works Old Round House Road Amory, Mississippi 38821

Dear Mr. Palmer:

This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Unfortunately, we do not have a simplified version of the standard which applies only to trailers. We have also modified the standard somewhat since the August 1978 version you referred to in your letter. I have attached a copy of the modification as well as a proposed further modification. I realize this is a complex standard, and, therefore, offer the following comments:

1. Since you produce less than 500 vehicles per year, characters 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the VIN will represent your manufacturer identifier. The date by which your manufacturer identifier must be submitted to the NHTSA has been changed to September 1, 1979. It is our understanding that the Society of Automotive Engineers will be willing to help you determine your manufacturer identifier. You should contact: Mr. Leo Ziegler, Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, (412) 776-4841.

2. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th characters of the VIN represent descriptive information about your vehicles. In the case of trailers, the type of trailer, series, body type, length and axle configuration must be represented. Since your model number can be associated with all these characteristics, you may want to incorporate it into the vehicle descriptor section.

3. The 9th character of the VIN represents the model year of the vehicle, and should be determined from Table II which appears in the standard.

4. The 10th character of the VIN represents the plant of manufacture. Since your firm has only one plant, you may choose any character you desire except one specifically precluded by the standard.

5. Since your firm manufacturers less than 500 vehicles each year, the last three characters of the VIN represent the number that is sequentially assigned to a vehicle in your production process.

6. The check digit which immediately precedes the third character of the VIN is determined by the mathematical operation described in section S5 of the standard. Since most characters in your VIN will be standarized, the check digit should be fairly easy to determine.

Please contact me if you have any further questions. Any trade associations to which you belong should also be helpful in establishing your VIN procedures.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 10, 1978

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S W Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: VIN Coordinator

Gentlemen:

I have just read pages 36448 through 36454 of Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 160 - Thursday, August 17, 1978. This is of course concerning the new VIN Standard No. 115. I am very confused as to how this affects our company as a manufacturer.

Dump trailers are the only product manufactured by the company. All of the trailers are manufactured at the same facility. Between 250 and 300 trailers are manufactured annually.

In S6.1 I notice that I am required to submit the unique identifies for each vehicle by January 1, 1979. Can you please send me a more simplified explanation of this standard that would pertain to trailers only? Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

PALMER MACHINE WORKS, INC.

Dick Palmer

ID: nht78-2.15

DATE: 03/15/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Vetter Fairing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1978, on motorcycle headlighting.

You have asked whether the prohibition in SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp against headlamp covers applies to a motorcycle. You have also asked the reason for the prohibition.

SAE J580a Sealed Beam Headlamp is incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards applicable to headlamps for use on passenger cars, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses whose overall width is less than 80 inches. One of the SAE standards incorporated by reference for motorcycle headlighting is J584 which, as an option, allows motorcycles to be equipped with headlamps "meeting the requirements of SAE J579" (i.e. passenger car sealed beam headlamps). There is no reference in J579a to J580a, and we therefore do not read the prohibition against headlamp covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with sealed or unsealed headlamps.

The reason for the prohibition is the degradation in Light output that can result from condensation under unsealed glass covers or from obscuration by grilles in front of the lens.

SINCERELY,

Vetter Fairing Company

February 1, 1978

Office of Chief Council Joseph J. Levin, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

After reviewing Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, I find a need to have several points of this regulation, relevant to our business, clarified and interpreted per your office.

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommende practice for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses to be, in part, SAE J580a, June 1966. Contained within SAE J580a, sealed beam headlamp, under General Requirements it states "A headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens."

Is it correct to assume that this prohibition does not apply to a motorcycle or to a motorcycle with attached side car? Also would you please state the reason/s why passenger cars are prohibited from having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use?

Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, Item - Headlamps, references the applicable SAE standard or recommended practice for motorcycles to be, in part, SAE J584, April 1964. Standard SAE J584, motorcycle and motor driven cycle headlamps makes no mention of any prohibition of having any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use.

Is it correct to infer that it is legal and within the scope of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, to have styling or other feature, such as a glass cover, or plastic cover or grille in front of the lens when a headlamp is in use on a motorcycle or on a motorcycle with attached side car?

It is in the intent of Vetter Fairing Company as a manufacturer of motorcycle accessories to conceive, research, design, produce, manufacture and market motorcycle accessories which meet or exceed all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.

Your review of any and all applicable regulations relevant to our business is appreciated and your interpretation of such regulations pertaining to the above questions is requested so that we can meet our obligations, to consumers, to manufacturer motorcycle accessories which are safe and which comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

W. W. Schwartz Technical Engineer Research & Development Dept.

cc: C. VETTER C. PERETHIAN

ID: nht78-2.40

DATE: 10/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood For J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Research Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Oct 17, 1978

Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202 New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Yoneyama:

This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, asking whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, must comply with Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standars, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii).

UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Aappendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space-saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.

On October 23, 1978 NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors Corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104 (d) (1) (iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

September 22, 1978 Ref. No. KY/107

Mr. Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This letter is with reference to rule S575.104, Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (Docket No. 25; Notice 24), as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, 90. 137, July 17, 1978.

We would like to know whether the rule on the "Application" and the "Effective date of the requirements for original equipment tires" can be read as follows:

1. Application

Paragraph (c) on the "Application" states that, "This section applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars... ."

On the basis of this statement, we understand that the rule is not applied to new pneumatic tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, even if the tires are listed on the Table of Standards No. 109.

For instance, a 6.00-16 tire is listed on the Table 1-A of Appendix A in the Standard No. 109, as a tire that is used for passenger cars. However, when the 6.00-16 tires are originally equipped on multipurpose passenger cars, we understand that it is not necessary for the tires to comply with the rule.

Is this correct, or not?

2. Effective Date

For the information requirements to be furnished to the first purchaser of a new motor vehicle, the paragraph (d) (1) (iii) states that, "The information ..... it must contain a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for the specific tire grades for the tires... ."

We understand that the information requirements to the first purchaser of a new moter vehicle will become effective on September 1, 1979 for bias ply tires and on March 1, 1980 for bias belted tires on the basis of the molding requirements.

Is this correct, or not?

We would appreciate it if you would inform us as to your opinion and judgement on the above interpretations, as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours truly,

KEN YONEYAMA Chief Engineer

KY/sff

ID: nht78-4.26

DATE: 06/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 Fifth Avenue North Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201

Dear Mrs. Litchy:

This responds to your April 23, 1985 letter asking about our regulations for school buses. You recently purchased a used 1980 model year 12- passenger van to carry school children to school-related activities, and to carry senior citizens and other adult groups.

I would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these is the motor vehicle safety standards issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and school bus equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers and dealers selling new buses to schools must sell buses that meet our school bus safety standards.

Since your sales transaction involved a used bus, the Vehicle Safety Act would not apply. In the event you decide to buy a new school bus, however, I would like you to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses to St. Michael's School. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

The second set of regulations for school buses was issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, operate as recommendations for state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (copy enclosed), Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations on school bus identification and equipment, operation, and maintenance. Those recommendations cover both new and used school buses. This guideline could affect the operation of your van if North Dakota has adopted Standard 17 as its own policy.

I want to stress that Standard 17 will affect you to the extent that North Dakota has adopted its recommendations as part of North Dakota's highway safety program. Your state officials will be able to give you more information about North Dakota's implementation of Standard 17's recommendations for school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 23, 1985

TO: Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

FROM: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 5th Ave. North Grand Forks, ND 58201

RE: Regulation for School and Parish use of a twelve passenger van

We recently purchased a 1980 twelve passenger Chevy van for our school and parish. The van will be used to transport groups of children on field trips, to sporting events, adult groups, high school groups, and senior citizens.

I had contacted the Highway Department of North Dakota and they said twelve passenger vans do not need a Class 2 license unless they are 80 or more inches wide.

However, recently a bus driving service in Grand Forks indicated that a twelve passenger van comes under more regulation than that.

Therefore, I am writing to you for clarification of the use of this van for elementary students and parish groups. I would also appreciate a copy of Standard Act 17 that I understand may be helpful.

Thank you. I await your reply.

Sincerely,

ST. MICHAEL'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(Mrs.) Sharon Litchy, Principal

ID: nht87-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah L. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Deborah L. Brown Office Manager Callaway Engineering 3 High Street Old Lyme, CT 06371

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understanding of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:

1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).

This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028: copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a sub sequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987; copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.

You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints in convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section @4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, cho ose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertible s and other passenger cars. Section @4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1, unless section @4.1.1 is rescinded pursuant to @4.1.5.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.

This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standard No. 208 and 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the a utomatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 6, 1987

Passive Restrains Department of Transportation 400 7th St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject:

Passive Restraints - Verification of Legislation

Re: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 (Docket No 74-14; Notice 47)

Occupant Crash Protection and Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting.

Federal Register/Vol 51, No 201/Friday October 17, 1986. Would you kindly verify the following in writing for our records: 1. NHTSA has decided to adopt a exemption from the automatic restraint requirement for convertibles. The exemption to apply during the phase-in period.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when it is calculating its phase-in requirements.

Also, please include the exact requirements regarding restraints for convertibles, i.e. type of system required ad when the system is required.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah L. Brown Office Manager

ID: nht94-3.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1994

FROM: Barbara Pietra -- Dabble, Inc. (Los Angeles, CA)

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, Office of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/26/94 from John Womack to Barbara Pietra (A42; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Several months ago I spoke with you about the Cair Bag I was developing. This product is designed to be used by children in an automobile (or airplane) who have outgrown their child restraint system (car seat or booster seat). This product allows a chi ld to rest or sleep more comfortably, keeping their seat belt positioned properly.

In the course of consideration of this product the legal department of Toyota USA has asked me to obtain a letter from you stating that the Cair Bag is not a child restraint system as described in FMVSS No. 213. I spoke with Dee Fujita, Esq. and Susan S tack last Friday, who referred me to you.

In the course of the development of this product I spoke to Patricia Breslin, Veronica Ferguson, Carolyn Jeeter of NHTSA, Cheryl Neverman, Susan Stack and Paul Snodgrass of the Department of Transportation, Art Hayes of the FAA and Cecil Smith of the US Products Consumer Safety Commission. Mr. Cecil Smith stated I should state on the label that this product is not intended for use by children under the age of 24 months. Everyone else I spoke with felt this was a great product and the only requirement would be that it not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt, which it dos not do. I felt it was necessary to further state that it is not intended for use by children under 40 pounds, to make it clear that this product is not in tended to compete with or in any way replace child restraint systems (car seats and booster seats).

Great care was taken in designing the Cair Bag product; keeping foremost in mind the comfort, safety and reliability of this product. The Cair Bag is a very lightweight (approximately one pound), under-stuffed styrene pellet bag with a removable, washab le cotton fabric outer bag. The Cair Bag is attached to the lap portion of the seat belt with a reinforced velcro and nylon strap.

When the child gets tired, he can attach the Cair Bag and lean into it, keeping the shoulder and lap belts positioned properly. This product would help to prevent the child from lying down on the seat of the car with the seat belt improperly, uncomforta bly and dangerously positioned.

The weight of the Cair Bag is distributed over the lap of the child, eliminating its force on the lap portion of the seat belt. Because the filling is very moldable in nature, the Cair Bag adapts to the legs and upper body of the child maintaining the proper positioning of the seat belt; taught across the lap and shoulder of the child.

Several months ago a representative from NHTSA sent me the enclosed excerpts from the "Child Passenger Safety Resource Manual". At that time it was determined that the Cair Bag would not interfere with the automatic locking mechanism of the seat belt. Since that time, I have been informed that this product should be recommended for use by children over 50 pounds as to prevent it from being used as a child restraint system. All literature will be changed to show this recommendation.

In conclusion, this product is desparately needed to aid in the comfort and safety of children who rest or sleep in the car. It can be seen as a comfort pillow and direct claims will not be made about the safety factor.

I have enclosed a copy of the label which will be attached to the Cair Bag, several photographs showing how children lie down on the car seat and the literature designed for Toyota for you evaluation.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions about this product at (310) 471-5242.

Attachments Cair Bag label. Cair Bag brochure.

ID: nht92-9.23

DATE: February 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Boehly -- Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: Subject: ACTION: OVSC's Request for Legal Interpretation, FMVSS 210

TEXT:

This responds to the December 20, 1991, request from the Director of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for an interpretation of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" in S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 as it applies to a conversion van manufactured by Glaval, Inc.

These Glaval vans have seats in which a rigid metal bracket is attached to the anchorage by means of a bolt on one end and the webbing of the belt passes through the rigid metal bracket at the other end. The rigid metal brackets can pivot around the bolt, depending on how tightly the bolt is fastened down. Regardless of how much the bolt is tightened, it would seem that the bracket would pivot if the belt system were restraining an occupant in a crash.

S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires a line from either the seating reference point or another point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage to form an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 degrees and not more than 75 degrees. The issue in this instance is whether the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" should be determined with reference to where the webbing passes through the upper end of the rigid metal bracket or with reference to the bolt on the lower end of the rigid metal bracket.

Previous agency interpretations have defined the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage" as the contact point between the webbing and the metal or rigid plastic hardware which is nearest the SgRP. Applying this concept to the design in question would result in the nearest contact point being determined with reference to the upper end of the rigid metal bracket through which the belt webbing passes.

An exception to this general rule is belt designs with flexible wire stalks. Even though these stalks are typically plastic-coated metal, the wire stalks are more akin to webbing (because of their flexibility) than to metal or rigid plastic hardware. Because of this flexibility, NHTSA has said that the nearest contact point for these wire stalks is not the upper end of these stalks where the webbing contacts it, but the lower end of the stalk where it is anchored to the vehicle.

In addition, NHTSA said in a February 15, 1973 letter to Mr. Kato of Nissan that, if a rigid bracket can be rotated around its attachment bolt, the centerline of the attachment bolt would be considered the "nearest contact point" for the purposes of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

It is my opinion that the letter to Nissan is of general applicability to safety belt systems in which the terminal hardware on the belt is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. The purpose of the anchorage location requirement is to ensure that the webbing crosses an occupant's body at an angle that is neither too shallow or too steep. The effective angle of the webbing is determined by the nearest point on the vehicle that does not alter its location under the influence of non-crash stresses on the webbing. In the case of the Glaval vans, as in the Nissan situation, the anchorage bolt is the fixed point around which the belt and its related hardware pivot and should be used as the "nearest contact point" under S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

You should note that my opinion is premised on the assumption that the metal bracket used by Glaval is free to pivot around the anchorage bolt. If the bracket were fixed in place, the "nearest contact point" for purposes of S4.3.1.1 would be the point at which the webbing contacts the upper end of the bracket.

ID: nht93-7.20

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Michinori Hachiya (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter requests your opinion regarding several aspects of the labeling requirements in the recent mandatory air bag rule. Our specific questions are set forth below.

1. Section 4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS 208, as amended in the recent final rule, states with regard to the information placed on the air bag warning label on the sun visor that "No other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed." May the same information appear on the visor in French, immediately following the English text? Permitting the addition of a French translation would facilitate harmonization with Canadian requirements for dual language labels. The French translation would add no information that contributes to "information overload," in our opinion, nor is it likely to cause confusion.

2. Section 4.5.1(a) states that the air bag maintenance label may be combined with the air bag warning label, but section 4.5.1(b) generally prohibits the addition of information to the warning label. We assume that the more specific statement in section 4.5.1(a) is controlling, and the two labels may be combined on the same side of the sun visor. If this assumption is correct, are there restrictions on the manner in which the two labels may be combined? For example, may the air bag maintenance information be inserted into the warning label information immediately prior to the words "see owner's manual for further information and explanations"? This sequence would avoid the necessity of referring twice to the owner's manual for further information.

3. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1 (b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

4. NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations provide that a utility vehicle rollover warning label may be affixed to the driver's side sun visor, and the label must include language urging the use of seat belts at all times. See 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1). However, the mandatory air bag rule prohibits placing (1) any additional information on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label and (2) any other information about the need to wear seat belts anywhere on the sun visor. 49 CFR 571.208, section 4.5.1(b)(2). The mandatory air bag rule did not explicitly amend the consumer information provision to prohibit the sun visor location of the rollover warning label. Since part 575 continues to explicitly authorize

the sun visor location for the rollover label, we believe that these requirements can be reconciled by interpreting them to permit the rollover label to be placed on the opposite side of the sun visor from the air bag warning label. Do you agree with this interpretation? We understand that GM and Ford have filed petitions to reconsider section 4.5.1(b)(2) which raises the same issue.

5. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

We request NHTSA to promptly consider these issues due to our lead time requirements. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my staff at (202) 466-5284.