ID: nht80-3.5

DATE: 06/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 17, 1980, to Mr. Vladislav Radoich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You asked if a child restraint has "shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed?"

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are an integral part of the shield. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above. The crotch strap you describe is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used.

You also asked if belts that must be adjusted to fit a child are prohibited by the standard. The standard does not prohibit adjustable belts. Section 5.4.2 of the standard does, however, establish requirements for any belt adjustment hardware used in the restraint.

Finally, you asked whether a surface, which is contactable by the test dummy head, that "is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or sling type of surface" would have to be covered with energy absorbing foam. Section 5.2.3.1 provides that each child restraint system, other than a harness, which is recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with the performance requirments of section 5.2.3.2. Section 5.2.3.2 provides that "Each surface, except for protusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by the dummy head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material" of specified characteristics. The requirement for padding applies to any surface contactable by the test dummy's head, regardless of whether the surface is rigid or flexible. If the contactable surface is made of a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set in section 5.2.3.2(a) and (b), the surface would not have to have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding placed on top of it.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Vladislav. Radovich Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 17, 1980

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future car seats we may produce. In this evaluation, we find that we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed when attaching fixed or movable surfaces directly forward of the child.

In the 213-80 Juvenile Car Seat Standard, under Section S6.1.2.3.1(c), it says "For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child restraint belt unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." Would you more clearly define what would be considered as "belts . . . (that) are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface."

If there are shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in a continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed? Further, would it be considered within the Standard if these belts required adjusting to fit the child? I am attaching a sketch of the type of car seat I am describing.

Another clarification is needed concerning areas that are contactable by the head requiring energy absorbing foam. Under Section S5.2.3.2, it says, "Each system surface which is contactable by the dummy's head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material . . ." if the area that is contactable is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or even a sling type of surface, would such surfaces also require being covered with energy absorbing foam?

Now that we have a Standard that gives us a starting point, we are eager to develop a new generation of car seats that will be even safer and easier to use. To do such innovative development takes considerable time. The earlier we can get your official answers to our questions to unclear parts of the Standard, the earlier we can get better car seats on the market. We hope you will be able to give these questions and those we have submitted to you earlier your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

Crotch strap is a continuous loop attached to the shoulder straps. The crotch strap detaches by means of a buckle.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.5

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Elgene Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.

(1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes all motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard; provided, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.

(2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may be used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.

(3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must be marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.

(4) For purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have been interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number "1" above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up to $ 1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $ 6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.

Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).

If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in the last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to "each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service." Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.

You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish a notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If you would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

SINCERELY,

August 15, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

In reference to U.S. Department of Transportation 571.120 standard no. 120: Tire Selection for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S5.1.3 specifically.

It is my interpretation that:

1. New trailers, trailer/container chassis, trucks and buses, may be equipped with retread tires utilizing salvaged, used, worn tire bodies.

2. These retreads may not be used on steering axles.

3. The worn, used tire bodies (casings) must have been manufactured on and after January 1, 1978, as evidenced by the DOT symbol marked on one sidewall.

4. The purchaser of the equipment may use retread tires on these new vehicles when he requests the chassis manufacturer to install same.

Would you please give me your interpretation of the above. I have great difficulty in competitively securing new chassis O.E.M. retread business with the opposition ignoring the requirements as I interpret them to be. This is a very viable segment of the retread industry since retreads salvage worn tires by consuming far less energy and oil than do new tires.

Are there penalties for non-conforming?

Are there any enforcement procedures?

If the new chassis, trailers, etc. were shipped without tires at all -- would the D.O.T. 120/119 casing (used) tire requirement be applicable?

If further personal discussions are necessary please feel free to call upon me. I urge you to respond quickly.

Gene S. Rosenfeld, President

ID: nht81-1.6

DATE: 01/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 17, 1980 letter in which you requested information about the steps your manufacturing plant must take to comply with this agency's requirements for selling tires in the United States. Your letter stated that your main products are truck tires.

All truck tires (for both light and heavy-weight vehicles) imported into the United States must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. You will see that the standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, and high speed performance), marking requirments (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

Concerning the performance requirements, your letter asked how many sets of each tire size must be delivered to this agency for testing and how the costs are paid. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing before they can be sold, but this country does not. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. After the manufacturer determines that the tires comply with the requirements, the manufacturer stamps the letters "DOT" on the tire to accomplish the certification. This agency then makes spot checks of tires, by purchasing some from a dealer and testing the tires according to the procedures set forth in Standard 119. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. However, there is no advance approval procedure by the agency.

It is a simple matter to check the tire to see that the marking requirements have been followed. I should note that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without a DOT marking to enter the United States.

With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well as the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current trade association manual or be furnished by manufacturers to dealers of the tires and in duplicate to this agency. If you wish to obtain a copy of the current manual published by the American tire manufacturers to see if the tire sizes manufactured by your plant are listed therein, you may send $ 8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims which you manufacture are listed in that manual, you have complied with this requirement. If the sizes are not listed, you may consult other trade associations, or you may exercise the option to furnish the information to your dealers and to this agency.

I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that would also apply to your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see @ 574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in @ 574.6 of this regulation.

Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms to its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The dealers must then return the completed forms to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive these forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires because they fail to comply with Standard 119 or because the tires have a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for you.

Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule, which applies to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. This designation must be in writing and in a form which is valid and binding under Chinese law. Such designation must provide the information set forth in @ 551.45(b) and be mailed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope that this information helps you and that the trade relationship between our countries will be a long and fruitful one. If you need any further information, or clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of Department of Transportation,

Dear Sirs:

Our plant is Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant, formally Ta Chung Hua Rubber INd.Co., established in 1928. Its main products are truck tires and light truck tires, "DOUBLE COIN" brand.

Since liberation, our products have already been exported to many other countries and districts. For promoting Sino-American trade, we would interest to export our tires (bias-ply) into the U.S. market.

We have been told that truck tires imported into U.S. market must meet the minimum Standards of NHTSA of DOT and get his identification. As we are short of further information related to these tests, we write this letter to you for your kind assistance. It would be much appreciated if this letter will soon reply to us for the following matters:

1) How many NHTSA Standards must be met before entering to U.S. tire market?

2) How many sets of each tire size will deliver to NHTSA for total testing procedures?

3) How many testing fee would be paid, if it is nessesary to?

4) Further details which we have to know.

Deng Shin-Wen, Deputy director & chiefengineer

ID: nht81-2.12

DATE: 04/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Auto Meter Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager Auto Meter Products, Inc. 413 W. Elm Street Sycamore, IL 60178

Dear Mr. Worthan:

This responds to your letter of January 12, 1981, regarding the applicability section of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether this standard applies to the speedometers you build, which are produced in low volume and primarily for manufacturers of show automobiles, off-road use vehicles and professional race cars. You interpret section S3 of the standard to apply only to "original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them."

Your interpretation is not quite correct. As you note in your letter, the application section (S3) of Standard No. 127 states that:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies...

"Passenger car" is defined in S 571.3 of 49 CFR Part 571 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

Thus, the word "passenger car" in Standard No. 127 encompasses more than those vehicles mass-produced by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler that we traditionally view as passenger cars. Any motor vehicle that (1) has motive power, (2) is designed to carry 10 persons or less (including the driver), and (3) that is not a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), motorcycle, or trailer is a "passenger car."

Therefore, a professional racing car would be considered a "passenger car" if it is a "motor vehicle." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

A motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to be used on the public highways part of the time or has reason to expect will be so used. Vehicles intended and used solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles. Thus, a professional race car or show car that was built and is used solely for off-road purposes is not considered to be a motor vehicle under the Act. Vehicles which use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are classified as motor vehicles. However, in Koehring Co. v. Adams, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wisc. 1978), aff'd., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that mobile construction equipment that is used on the highways in such fashion does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in Koehring Co., i.e., mobile cranes, mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.

Thus, the vehicles that you supply with speedometers may be considered "passenger cars" as the term is used in Safety Standard No. 127. We cannot make a definite determination on the basis of the information you have provided (you state that you supply speedometers primarily for off-road vehicles). However, the guidelines set forth above should enable you to reach your own decision. You should contact this office if you have questions about a specific vehicle. If the vehicles for which you are manufacturing speedometers are considered "passenger cars," Standard No. 127 would apply. However, since the speedometer provisions of this standard became effective on September 1, 1979, only speedometers (both original equipment and replacement) manufactured for passenger cars built on or after that date would have to comply. The speed indicator scale on such a speedometer would have to be limited to 85 mph. The Act does not give this agency the power to grant manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment exemptions from applicable safety standards on the grounds of low volume.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 12, 1981 Office of the Chief Counsel NOA-30 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Auto Meter Products Inc. is an aftermarket manufacturer of specialty and hi-performance instruments. Among the instruments that we manufacture and for which I am concerned at this time, are speedometers. We have become aware of recent regulations limiting standard speedometers to 85 MPH maximum and are interested in your confirmation of our interpretation of this regulation.

On page 40593 in Standard No. 127 of the Federal Register volume 45, covering speedometers and odometers, the application of this regulation, (S-3) states, "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies." In reading over regulation 127, I interpret the standard to be referring to original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them. That these standard OEM speedometers are limited to go no higher than 85 MPH.

Since Auto Meter Products Inc. speedomters are produced in low volume and are used primarily in show automobiles, off road use, professional race cars etc. rather than street applications, it is our uderstanding that the 85 MPH limit of the standard No. 127 does not apply. Please advise.

Sincerely,

Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager

RJW/ap cc: B. Owens

ID: nht81-2.34

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.

The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system cannot activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.

The agency's position has not changed since the response to American Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Raymond Peck -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Peck:

Chrysler Corporation requests interpretation of the requirements contained in MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection, regarding the operation of the audible signal of the seat belt reminder system. Paragraph S7.3 requires:

A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words, "Fasten Seat Belt" or "Fasten Belt" or the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale in Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80 when condition (a) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition (b).

(a) - The vehicle's position switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(b) - The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturers, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by belt not being extended at least four inches from its stowed position.

Specifically, we request an interpretation of the language of S7.3 as to whether continued operation of the audible signal is permissible during the remaining portion of the four to eight second time period after the driver has started the engine and buckled his seat belt.

A affirmative interpretation would not depreciate the reminder systems effectiveness, would be cost beneficial, and in our opinion, is permitted under the language of the standard. The only adverse effect of such an interpretation would be a slight annoyance to those drivers who "buckle up" before the four to eight second time period has elapsed.

The seat belt reminder system that Chrysler Corporation uses includes a switch in the driver's lap belt buckle to deactivate the audible signal whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. The inclusion of this switch made good sense when the provisions of the standard required that the audible signal activate for at least one minute if the driver's lap belt was not in use. Subsequently, the Congress and the NHTSA amended the standard to require the current four to eight second limitation. With this limitation, there is no longer a need to deactivate the audible signal since in any event it can only function for a maximum of eight seconds. Consequently, we do not believe that operation of the audible signal for this time period would be a major annoyance to those seat belt users who "buckle up" before starting the engine. Moreover, allowing the audible signal to function regardless of whether the driver's lap belt is in use would improve the systems effectiveness by alerting other vehicle occupants of the need to "buckle up". The removal of the driver's seat belt buckle switch would result in a product cost savings of from $ 0.94 to $ 1.86 on our passenger cars and obviously increase the cost effectiveness of the seat belt reminder system.

We understand the NHTSA has previously interpreted the provisions of paragraph S7.3 to require that the audible signal be deactivated whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. That interpretation appears to be primarily based on the agency's intent as discussed in the previous rulemaking notices. While these are important, the language of the standard should be the final criteria to guide any interpretation of the standard. Moreover, we believe the intent of the agency cited in the response to the previous request for interpretation of paragraph S7.3 was really related to the earlier rulemaking actions at a time when the audible signal was required to function continuously or for at least one minute. Under the current four to eight second limitation, we doubt the agency's stated intent applies to such a de minimus matter.

If the agency cannot issue an affirmative interpretation of paragraph S7.3, we ask that this request be considered a petition for rulemaking to amend S7.3 of MVSS 208 and tha the necessary changes in the standard be adopted as soon as possible. As pointed out above, the requirement for a buckle switch to deactivate the audible signal when the driver "buckles up" has no safety merit and continuing a requirement for it perpetuates cost without benefit. In view of these facts and the potential cost savings if the buckle switch can be removed, the regulations should not require it.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

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

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/90

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel

TO: John G. Sims -- Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM JOHN, G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC. DATED 11/06/89 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 217; REFERENCE NO NEF-31 RSH; CIR 2996

TEXT: Dear Mr. Simms:

This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Robert Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No . 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses.

The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: " . . . each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'E mergency Exit' . . . followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism."

Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arran gement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion.

2

Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation "Emergency Exit." In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver' s seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent.

Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit.

We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed.

Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit de signation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit" is designe d to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here.

The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit "markings" referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as wel l.

3

As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that "each marking shall be legible . . ." (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term "marking." According ly, the ordinary meaning of the term "marking" and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word "markings" refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1 .

If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-5.51

DATE: 03/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agency considers Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high seat back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d)):

@ 103

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height that necessitates a height of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under @ 103(d).

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing with armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F. 2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New York State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.

YOURS TRULY,

February 20, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In 1974 the New York State Legislature enacted a law that specified that all seats in school buses having a capacity of more than 11 passengers would have to be 28 inches high effective January 1, 1976. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the adoption of a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 identified as School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and identified it as Section 751.222 of Part 751 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to become effective October 26, 1976, which specifies under S5.1.2 that the seat back height must be 20 inches.

It has been called to our attention that under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect no state or political subdivision shall have any authority, either to establish or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. To date we have had differing opinions from representatives of the Federal Department of Transportation as to how we are to interpret this clause. So that we may set the records straight, we would like an official determination from your agency as to whether or not New York State can legally retain the requirement of 28 inch high back seats once the Federal standard dealing with seat back heights becomes effective on October 26, 1976.

Although not specifically addressed in the section dealing with school bus passenger seating and crash protection, we would also like to know whether or not an additional requirement in New York dealing with armrests on all seats in school buses having a seating capacity of more than 11 persons would be considered contrary to the standard. Since the standard does not include provision for armrests, it is possible to interpret it as meaning that armrests are not allowed.

Should you have any question as to what we are attempting to resolve, please feel free to call me on Phone # A.C. 518 - 457-1010, and we would hope to hear from you in the near future as to your reaction to our questions. You can address your reply to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12232.

WILLIAM G. GALLOWAY, Director Traffic and Safety Division

By

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht73-1.44

DATE: 07/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Philips Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 4 and June 22, 1973, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". Your letter of June 4 asks which glazing materials may properly be used in motor homes under the Federal standard, and whether State laws which provide otherwise are invalid under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter of June 22 asks what requirements apply for glazing materials used in travel trailers.

Our records indicate that we wrote on July 5, 1972, to Mr. Robert T. Sanders of Philips Industries, in response to a letter from him concerning glazing requirements for chassis-mount and slide-in campers, trailer, and motor homes. Standard No. 205 has been amended since that date (on November 11, 1972; 37 FR 24035) and this letter reflects some of the changes in the standard made by that amendment.

The requirements for glazing for use in motor homes, which under NHTSA definitions now includes chassis-mount campers as well as traditional motor homes, are essentially those specified in ANS Z26 for trucks, with certain exceptions. Thus, for windshields, AS 1 or AS 10 materials may be used. For windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, and AS 11 materials may be used, and AS 3 may be used in the unusual situation where any such window is not requisite for driving visibility. All other windows may be AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, AS 4, and AS 8 materials. Additionally, windows other than windshields and those to the immediate right and left of the driver may be: AS 3, AS 5, AS 9, and AS 12 where not requisite for driving visibility; AS 6 where not forward-facing; AS 7 and AS 12 where neither at levels requisite for driving visibility nor forward-facing.

I would add that the term "forward-facing" is not limited to windshields or behind-the-cab windows, as your letter implies, but applies to any window that is mounted in a plane transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. It includes as well, for example, windows placed above the windshield, and any transverse interior partition.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) does prohibit, as you indicate in your letter, any State or political subdivision of a State from establishing or continuing in effect with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of the vehicle that is not identical to the Federal standard. The question raised by your letter is whether a State law which prohibits the use of glazing materials in locations of motor vehicles where they are specifically permitted to be used by the Federal standard is violative of section 103(d). It is our view that such a law is violative of section 103(d), and is invalid, as we believe that the use of a particular glazing material in specific vehicle locations is an aspect of performance that is covered by Standard No. 205. You are correct in adding, however, that under section 103(d) a State (or subdivision thereof) may require a higher standard of performance than that established by the Federal standard in vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. You may, of course, refer to this letter in your discussions with any State authorities regarding these issues.

The interpretation in your letter of June 22 that Standard No. 205 does not apply to glazing materials for use in travel trailers is correct.

Yours truly,

June 4, 1973

Richard Dyson --

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

This has reference to the telephone conversation I had with Mike Pescoe, relating to the use of safety glazing materials in motor homes.

According to our interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, #205, with its recent amendment, any window except the forward facing windows (windshield) and behind-the-cab windows and side windows directly adjacent to the driver may be manufactured of any glazing materials AS-1 through AS-13 as specified in ANS Z26.1-1966.

It is also our understanding that since the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for safety glazing has been already established, no State or political sub-division of a State shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

It is also our understanding that the Federal or the government of any State or political sub-division can establish a safety glazing requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such glazing imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal Standard.

I would appreciate your comments on the above.

Sincerely,

Krish Kudva --

Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC.

June 22, 1973

Richard Dyson U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Further to my letter dated June 4, 1973, relating to the use of safety glazing materials, I would appreciate your comment on the following interpretation besides what has already been listed in that letter.

What is the correct interpretation of glazing requirements for travel trailers? I understand that travel trailers do not require safety glazing.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

Krish Kudva -- Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC.

ID: 77-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Lamar Gudger - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please excuse the delay in my response to your letter of June 15, 1977, addressed to Mr. Norman Sultan, with a copy to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal requirement for registration of tires.

Mr. Sultan has reported a tire registration of 10 percent in his area of operation which is considerably less than the national figures of 30 percent for retreads and 70 percent for new tire replacements developed in our studies. Mr. Sultan is urging a change in the law to permit voluntary registration of all tires.

Mr. John Snow, my predecessor, reported to the Honorable Warren G. Magnuson, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, that consideration would be given to changing Regulation Part 574 allowing voluntary registration of retreaded tires in lieu of mandatory registration. Since taking office, I have devoted considerable attention to reviewing and analyzing the pertinent factors related to tire registration. I am convinced of the safety benefits of registering new tires and I consider the mandatory recordkeeping provision essential to the purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, because retreaded tires are individually manufactured and therefore could not be recalled as are mass produced items, I am considering proposing revocation of the mandatory recordkeeping requirement for retreaded tires.

For your information I am enclosing a copy of my recent letter to Senator Magnuson in response to his questions on this subject. You may be interested to know that a recent meeting with representatives of the National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association (NTDRA) provided an opportunity to discuss basic clerical problems associated with registration. As a result, an interpretation of the regulation was reached which would permit the tire purchaser personally to complete the registration form. Although dealer responsibility remains, the interpretation is considered by NTDRA to provide considerable relief to dealers in time and cost. Hopefully this action will offset much of the objections to the current tire registration process.

SINCERELY,

Encls. Constituent's LTR. To Sen. MAGNUSON DATED AUG. 3, 1977

Congress of The United States House of Representatives

June 15, 1977

Norman Sultan

First, let me apologize for my delay in responding to your letter of May 27, 1977. I have noted your concern over the provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requiring tire registration and the fact that the rate of response is now less than ten percent and that the added expense for such return "is simply just not worth it".

We were in contact with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the study which you cited which is to be conducted on the advisability of making such program voluntary and were informed that this has been under consideration for some time. In an effort to be of assistance in this matter, I am today taking the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the appropriate officials at this Administration in order that they might have the benefit of your views and an opportunity to supply up-to-date infromation on the study. Upon receipt of a response I will forward you a copy. I also appreciate having your views in regard to an Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Fortunately in Western North Carolina and in many other areas, the Better Business Bureau and private agencies are working effectively to protect the consumer from fraud and oppression. Moreover, the North Carolina Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney General each maintain an assistant or a division to prosecute persons who defraud the public by false and fradulent sales practices. For these reasons and because I generally oppose creating new federal agencies and imposing more bureaucratic regulations, I expect to vote against the Agency for Consumer Advocacy.

The House Government Committee reported H. R. 6805 May 10th and it could reach the House Floor soon. I will certainly keep your observations about the bill in mind when it comes up for a vote.

With best wishes and kind personal regards.

Lamar Gudger Member of Congress

bcc: NHTSA CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON

May 27, 1977

The Honorable Lamar Gudger House of Representatives House Office Building

In 1966 the Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains a provision on tire registration. The law went into effect six years ago and has caused tire dealers a lot of expense and very little satisfaction. Our rate of response from small dealers in this registration card mailing is now probably running less than 10% and, in my opinion, during the six years, we feel that the added expense for the return is simply just not worth it.

I have just recently learned that the National Highway Traffic Administration will conduct a study on the advisability of making this program voluntary. We hope that the law can be changed to make the registration voluntary because as we said before, the expense is unnecessary and the customer does not want it.

While I am at it, I might as well tell you that I think the passage of the Consumer Agency Billing which creates an independent agency for consumer advocacy. I am against the creation of this agency because I firmly believe that communications between consumers and retailers, particularly in my industry, can be improved by the establishment of a consumer council "which can be adapted and run by local and area tire dealer groups". You fellows must not have thought too much about this agency yourselves since it only passed by one vote.

I am sure you have gotten acclamated to the ways of Washington by now so with best regards to you and yours.

Norman Sultan