ID: 86-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka Manager, Certification Business Dept. II Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18 Hiroshima 703 91 Japan Dear Mr. Nakatasuka: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in February 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is a correct interpretation. Nevertheless, you stated that Mazda would voluntarily comply with the requirements of Part 541 for the 1987 vehicles in that carline produced after April 24, 1986, the effective date for Part 541. You asked whether your voluntary marking of some of the 1987 vehicles in that carline would cause this agency to conclude that all of the 1987 vehicles in that carline were not in compliance with Part 541. It will not. As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. This effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings aCT (14 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: "The (theft prevention) standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year." H.R, Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2 Sess. at 11 (1984). For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Hence, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year. Having concluded that the theft prevention standard does not apply to such 1987 model year vehicles, any voluntary actions taken by the vehicle manufacturer cannot affect this conclusion. Your company may choose to mark the 1987 vehicles in this carline introduced on or after the effective date of Part 541, as your letter indicates you plan to so. On the other hand, you may choose not to mark those or any of the 1987 vehicles in this carline. Whichever course of action you choose does not change the fact that Part 541 does not apply to the 1987 model year vehicles of a carline introduced into commerce before April 24, 1986. Second, you stated that Part 541 was unclear as to whether a metal tag stamped with the vehicle identification number and affixed to a vehicle part by means of "one-way screws" would be considered "labels", subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1), or "other means of identification, subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). All means of identification which are affixed to a part are considered labels for purposes of Part 541. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). All markings which are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, one-way screws, rivets, or welding, are labels. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1). Conversely, all markings which are inscribed into a part, whether by means of etching, stamping, engraving, or sandblasting, are other means of identification. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks Alaska concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.

Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts apply to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below. the answer is no.

We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company. Wilbur & Son. on February 13 to obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1984 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles. but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e.. school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although we have determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted. we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.

We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985). Which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if he can be of further assistance.

Sincerely.

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear David:

I've been contacted by Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska regarding federal regulations for seat belts on school buses.

Ms. Hallenbeck works for Wilbur & Son, the company which runs a bus shuttle service at Fort Wainwright for military personnel and civilians. The buses used are school buses which have been repainted for use by Wilbur & Son.

Ms. Hallenbeck would like to know what type of federal regulations on seat belts would apply to these buses. I'd appreciate your supplying this information.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes, Cordially,

TED STEVENS

ID: 86-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 21, 1986 Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen Safety Transport Inter (Pty) Ltd. P.O. Box 1513 Dassenberg 7350 SOUTH AFRICA Dear Mr. Elvin-Jensen: This responds to your letter dated August 28, 1985, asking whether a child booster seat marketed by your company complies with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. I regret the delay in replying to your letter. The descriptive materials accompanying your letter indicate that your child seat is secured by a vehicle's belt system, and has no harness of its own. Standard No. 213 applies to all child restraint systems. Those except Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The information enclosed with your letter states that the child booster seat is intended to seat children weighing from 15 to 32 kg., which is equivalent to 33 to 70.5 pounds. This weight range includes children who weigh up to 50 pounds. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would apply to your product if it is marketed in this country. You ask if Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems to have their own harness. The answer is no. the specific requirements of the standard on child restraint harness systems only apply if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system. Thus, for example, section 5.4.3.3 does not require that each child restraint be equipped with a harness meeting the requirements of that section. Instead, it provides that "each child restraint system...that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with those requirements. (Emphasis added.) Under S6.1 of the standard, your child booster seat would be tested with a Type I safety belt (i.e., lap belt) attached. Although abdominal loading is not specifically measured in the test, the agency is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child. The abdomen is, of course, the area of the body most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt in a crash. thus, the agency believes that the lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the photograph of your child booster seat, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen, unless the seating surface of the restraint is designed to prevent submarining. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., under which Standard No. 213 was issued, provides for self-certification by manufacturers instead of the type-approval or homologation process used in Europe and elsewhere. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. If you plan to market your child safety seat in this country, you should ensure that your child safety seat complies with all of the applicable requirements of the standard, including the certification requirements of S5.5. Under the Act and our regulations, manufacturers also have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (sections 151-159). The Act defines a manufacturer as "any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In the event that neither the importer nor the assembling manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, could be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). Copies of Standard No. 213, the Act, Part 566, Part 551, 19 CFR 12.80 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers are enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: I. Levy -- B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. Levy B.P.T. Leisure International Ltd. 3/4 Portland Street London, WIN 56G ENGLAND

Thank You for your letter of January 11, 1984, concerning the effect of our regulations on a product you may export to the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

The product, which you call a "Klunk-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attaches to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Your Ref.

Our Ref. IL/MN

Date: 14th January 1986

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington D.C., 20590 United States of America

Dear Sirs,

We are endeavouring to export to the United States an attachment which fits into the seatbelt of a motor vehicle and provides the possibility of the adjustment to heighten the comfort level of the wearer.

In order that you may understand exactly what is meant by the above, we enclose herewith a diagram together with the instructions for this item.

We should be most obliged if you could confirm to us that his item would not be excluded from use and does not violate any present Federal Safety Regulations which are in force.

We look forward to hearing from you in this matter.

Yours faithfully, for BPT LEISURE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

I Levy

The KLUNK KLIP* attachment can be used on most cars fitted with automatic (self-retracting) seat belts, where the seatbelt anchor point on the door pillar is similar to the above diagram. (It is not suitable for cars with recessed mountings).

It is designed to provide a personal adjustment which was previously only possible with static-type belts.

KLUNK-KLIP is designed for those who find seatbelts uncomfortable or even claustrophobic to wear. The use of KLUNK-KLIP avoids the tightness and tension so disliked by the users of automatic seatbelts. Ladies in particular appreciate the improved comfort when using KLUNK-KLIP.

KLUNK-KLIP does not effect the efficient working of the automatic seat belt.

TO FIT (see above illustration)

Remove the rotary wedge (A) by easing the two lugs (B) apart. Fit the hook part over the anchor bolt (C) on door pillar. Refit the wedge (A) as shown in diagram. The wedge should now lift freely to grip the belt.

TO USE

Fasten seat belt in the usual way.

Place one hand flat on chest beneath belt. This will extend the belt sufficiently to relieve the tension.

Lift wedge to lock belt.

You may now drive freely without tension. Any movement of the body or slight pull will release the KLIP and the belt will return to its retracted position.

Each time the belt is used the KLUNK-KLIP should be set as advised above, being careful to avoid introducing excessive slack.

ID: 86-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Cole

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Doug Cole Director of Public Relations and Membership National Van Conversion Association, Inc. 2 West Main Street, Suite 2 Greenfield, IN 46140

Dear Mr. Cole:

Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1985 to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would affect the placement of a national Van Conversion Association (NVCA) certification decal on vehicle windows by a van conversion company. The material enclosed with your letter explains that the NVCA certification program is a voluntary effort by the van conversion industry to set minimum safety and quality standards for its products. You explained that the decal, which has a diameter of 2 1/2 inches, would be placed on the lower corner of the passenger's side of the windshield by a manufacturer whose products conform to the NVCA program.

Placement of the decals on a vehicle's windshield would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield in motor vehicles).

Part 567, Certification, of our regulations requires each vehicle manufacturer to place a plate within the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A person, such as a van converter, who makes significant modifications to a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations. Under Part 567.7, an alterer must also add a plate to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, no manufacturer or alterer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screening devices or other opaque materials in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device or other opaque material for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108 (a) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

We have not previously ruled on whether these prohibitions apply to the installation of State vehicle inspection and private industry regulatory decals by commercial businesses. In general, these decals are small in size and placed in locations which minimize the obstruction, if any, to the driver's vision. In contrast, tinting films and other sun screening devices are generally applied to the entire window and thus can substantially obscure the driver's vision if they do not meet the light transmittance and other performance requirements of the standard. As with State regulatory decals, your proposed decal is small in size and would be placed in the lower right corner of the vehicle windshield, an area which should minimize any possible obstructing of the driver's vision. Given these considerations, we would consider the placement of the NVCA decal in the lower right hand corner of the windshield to be merely a technical violation of Standard No. 205, and would exercise our prosecutorial discretion and not bring an enforcement action.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

December 2, 1985

Mr. Steve Oeshe NHTSA, Office of the Chief Council 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve:

Will you please provide me a written statement, from your department, that the placement of our Certification decals are not in violation of any Federal Safety Standards?

I have enclosed a rough drawing showing the placement of the decal, on the inside lower passenger side of the windshield. Also enclosed is our information packet about National Van Conversion Association's Van Conversion Manufacturer Certification program.

If you have any questions about the program, or if I can be of service, please call on me.

Sincerely,

Doug Cole Director of P.R. and Membership

DC/lp

Enclosure:

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: 86-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joseph H. Barnett, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Joseph H. Barnett, Esq. Puckett, Barnett, Larson, Mickey Wilson & Ochsenschlager One Constitution Drive P.O. Box 1287 Aurora, Illinois 60507

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This responds to your letter concerning a brake shoe assembly invented by your client. You stated that it is contemplated that the item will be sold in the replacement or so called after market and asked whether governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake shoe assembly, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not by required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Please note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

N.H.T.A. 40O - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

RE: Belk Brake Assembly Patent Application Serial No. 06/804,166

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This office is counsel for George L. Belk, the inventor of an improved brake shoe assembly. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the abstract describing same along with figures 1 and 2 of the mechanical drawing submitted with the patent application.

In previous art, the webs are welded to the table and by this invention they are held together by slots and belts. Prototypes have been successfully road-tested for many thousands of miles under heavy duty conditions.

It is contemplated that the market for the item will be in the replacement or so-called attachment. Could you please advise if governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service.

Very truly yours,

J.H. Barnett

JHB/me

Enclosures

BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY

ABSTRACT

A bake shoe assembly for a vehicle includes a generally arcuate platform, to which a pad of friction lining is attached, and with is selectively connectable to a pair of supporting webs. Each web has a plurality o radially extending peripheral projections received by corresponding slots provided in the platform. Clamp means are provided for pressing the webs against the platform such that the projections and slots cooperate to locate the webs immovably on the platform. The platform and friction lining may thereby be removed from the webs while the webs remain installed within the brake drum of the vehicle.

ID: 77-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ASTM Subcommittee F9.10

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 2, 1977, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still emphasizes or frequently conducts tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating tests as authorized by Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

As you know, the bead unseating test procedure was adopted from the Society of Automotive Engineers Practice J918. It is our understanding that the SAE continues to use this procedure for tire performance tests. The NHTSA is of the opinion that the bead unseating test procedure is a viable laboratory evaluation of the compatibility of a tire and rim combination. This has become especially important since 1975, when the table of approved alternative rims of Appendix A of Standard No. 110, Tire and Rim Selection, was deleted, and the tables of standards organizations were adopted. The bead unseating test provides an additional verification of the tire and rim combinations listed in the yearbooks of these organizations.

Standard No. 109 requires several tire performance tests: physical dimensions, resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance. The NHTSA compliance testing is conducted on a random selection basis. In the case of tires, not every test is conducted on each brand of tire selected for compliance testing. Therefore, the bead unseating test is not always conducted during compliance testing. However, the agency does conduct bead unseating tests whenever appropriate and will continue to do so.

SINCERELY,

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires has been developing a Standard Test Procedure for Unseating the Bead of a Tubeless Passenger Car Tire from the Rim. The draft of this Proposed Standard Test Procedure was approved by the Subcommittee and submitted to the F-9 Main Committee for ballot. The Test Procedure is essentially that of the Bead Unseating Test contained in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration test MVSS 109 put in ASTM format.

Discussion of five negative ballots which were received disclosed that there exists considerable doubt concerning the validity of the Bead Unseating Test among the engineers representing the tire producing companies. The principal objections to it are:

a. It is believed that the unseating test does not reflect actual field results, nor performance characteristics.

b. The test is not functional for all current sizes (profiles, construction, etc.) of tires.

c. The origin and data base of the bead unseating test, as well as the reasons for its incorporation into the repertoire of testing, are not clear to the persons presently involved in tire test work.

d. That the regulatory bodies no longer emphasize nor do they frequently conduct the test.

The Task Group is planning a survey to obtain information from the tire producing companies which will assist in the resolution of (a) and (b) above. Since the test originated with the motor car companies and was developed by their representatives in the tire committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the Task Group expects to obtain the early history of the test from the SAE group to resolve (c).

It is the purpose of this inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine whether that regulatory group no longer emphasizes nor frequently conducts the test as stated in (d) above. Is this the present situation? Does NHTSA consider that this test has lost significance since it was adopted as part of the original MVSS 109.

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 would appreciate a response from NHTSA to clarify the situation in which the passenger tubeless tire bead unseating test is presently considered and conducted by them.

Louis Marick, Chairman Subcommittee F-9.10

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from ASTM subcommittee F9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires questioning the validity of the "Bead Unseating Test Procedure MVSS109" which is being considered for development as an ASTM Standard.

The purpose of my letter is to request your response to the problem presented and ask that you reply directly to:

Mr. Louis Marick, Chairman ASTM Subcommittee F9.10 339 Merriweather Road Grosse Pointe, Mich 48236 Your assistance on this standards development project will be sincerely appreciated.

William T. Cavanaugh Managing Director

CC: L. MARICK; F. CECIL BRENNER -- NHTSA

ID: 77-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/77 EST

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

TO: National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter to Fred Vetter of May 6, 1977, concerning the knee room required for passengers in a small school bus, I think it is essential for your members to understand that the terms "Type I" and "Type II" are meaningless in the context of the motor vehicle safety standards. There is a difference in the seat spacing requirements for large buses and small buses, but in deciding which spacing a particular bus must meet, the manufacturers must use the criteria of the standards under 49 CFR Part 571, and not the Type I/Type II distinction.

In dealing with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, two criteria determine the applicability of various requirements: seating capacity and vehicle weight. The seating capacity of a vehicle determines whether a vehicle is to be considered a school bus. Under the definitions of bus and school bus in 49 CFR @ 571.3, the critical number of passengers is 10. If a motor vehicle is designed to carry "more than 10 persons," it is a bus. If a bus is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events" it is a school bus. All school buses must conform to the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Standard No. 222, however, makes the criterion of weight relevant in determining the spacing between seats. In a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, section 5.2 of the standard requires each passenger seat to have either a seat back or a restraining barrier within 20 inches of the "seating reference point," a design point that is roughly 5.2 inches forward of the seat back. Measured from the seat back, therefore, all school buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds must provide "knee room" of not more than about 25.2 inches. School buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less do not have to meet the spacing requirements.

Any school buses that your members purchase will therefore have to meet the spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 if they weigh more than 10,000 pounds. This weight corresponds roughly to a bus with a seating capacity of 14-17 persons, so that most "Type I" school buses would have to meet the spacing requirements, and most "Type II" buses would not. Always keep in mind that it is the school bus's weight, not its seating capacity, that determines the applicability of the spacing requirement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

National School Transportation Association MAY 6, 1977

Fred Vetter -- Associate Administrator, NHTSA Safety programs

Dear Mr. Vetter:

RE: Type II Buses

It seems appropriate to bring you up to date on the Type II Bus Saga . . . . . . .

Further discussions with Bob Kure from Wayne and finally with Tim Hoyt of the NHTSA did bring out the fact that the knee room is not a problem in the Type II Buses as earlier stated by our Association.

There are still problems in that Dodge has now dropped out of the market and Chevrolet has yet to certify their chassis. At the moment there is no chassis available to the Type II market. (Ford has not been involved since the April 1 regulations came into being).

The frustration we feel at this time is indeed great. In dialogue with 4 manufacturers of these vehicles and many state directors, the notion that the 25.2" knee room applies to Type II School Buses still abounds. In fact, one Regional Highway Administrator is telling all of his states that 25.2" is fact for both Type II and Type I school buses.

When I first raised the question at the Motor Vehicle Programs Sector, this was told to me as being the truth after I was asked the question by a State Director. That day Tim Hoyt was not in, but someone of his superiors did take the call and confirm that Type II buses need 25.2" knee room and the seat belts. I fussed at this and indicated it would not work and was told "Congress gave us this short time constraint and we did the best we could . . . and we spent a lot of thought about these matters . . . . even if you think we did not". Based on that conversation, I went forth concerned and upset that the Special Education buses would not fit the needs of the children being transported.

We still have concerns and will be reponding to the Activity Bus problems and others as they develop. Your time and attention during our distress is appreciated. If only we could get better answers when we need them!

Sincerely,

BILLIE REYNOLDS

ID: 77-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Edward J. Flesch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et. seq.), provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, none of the persons mentined could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standrad No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $ 1,000.

Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be "rendered inoperative." From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.

SINCERELY,

February 18, 1977

The President The White House

I have a consumer problem and I don't know just where to go for a solution. I've contacted the following with no result.

Better Business Bureau

Department of Transportation

Consumer Product Safety Commission

General Motors Corporation

District Attorney's Office

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Senator Zorinski's Office

A plastic part that attaches the shroud to the retracting device of the front seat belts on my 1975 Chevrolet Nova has broken. I'm certain that the part should cost somewhat less than a dollar. The Regional Representative for General Motors has told me that a law forbids replacing only this part - that the entire seat belt system most be replaced at a cost of over ten dollars plus labor.

If a law does exist in such language that it must be interpreted that way, it should be changed. The part is easily inserted without effecting the safety function of the seat belt system. Its absence does cause damage to the back of the seat by allowing the shroud to catch on the seat fabric.

I have asked each of those I contacted if instructions can be issued allowing reinterpretation of any regulation or law forbidding the sale of the part. Each Government agency has denied responsibility or the ability to find a solution and referred me to one of the others.

This is a prime example of one of those bureaucratic messes of which you have spoken. I could probably manufacture a "do for it" in my own workship, but it has become much more important to me to unravel this mess than it is to repair the broken shroud. Please let me know what can be done.

EDWARD J. FLESCH

MAY 23, 1977

Edward J. Flesch

Your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977, regarding your complaint concerning General Motors' refusal to replace a part of your seat belt has been forwarded to the Department of Justice for response.

The Consumer Affairs Section contacted the Office of the Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and advised them of your complaint. We were informed by that Office that it has jurisdiction over requirements for seat belt assemblies and anchorages. We are therefore forwarding your correspondence to the Office of the Chief Counsel for their consideration.

We hope this is of assistance to you.

John H. Shenefield Acting Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division

cc: FRANK A. BERNDT