ID: 86-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne D. Buhler -- Director of Engineering, Onspot, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc. 1424 E. 800 N. Orem, UT 84057

Dear Mr. Buhler:

This responds to your letter requesting a review of your "Onspot Safety Chain," an automatic snowchain, for compliance with existing regulations. according to your letter, the current units are being installed both as original equipment and in the aftermarket on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, although prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. The device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from an air tank or the Onspot air chambers. For the future, you are considering using a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve. On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, air is generally used from the secondary air reservoir, or the primary reservoir if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes, an auxiliary air system is provided. 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 does not have any regulations covering automatic snowchains. However, it is possible that installation of the Onspot Safety Chain could affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. We note in particular that since the device may be tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified 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 be 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. I note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge apply regardless of whether an item of motor vehicle equipment is covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Erika Jones March 24, 1986 Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Jones:

I am writing to officially request a review of our product for compliance with existing codes. Enclosed is a copy of our patents and a description of the installation of the product. This should prove helpful in your evaluation.

The Onspot Safety Chain is relatively new to the United States as it has only been marketed since 1984. The product is currently being imported from Sweden, where it was invented. There are approximately 10,000 units in operation worldwide with 1000 of these in operation in the U.S. Customers include the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S.A.F.

The current units have been installed on 1/2 ton and larger vehicles, though prototypes are being developed for passenger cars. Installations are made both at the O.E.M. level and the aftermarket.

Onspot safety chains have been approved in the National Standards for School Bus Body on May 22, 1985. California Senate bill No. 2186 also allows the chains is equivalent to a single set of standard chains. The state of Washington granted a certificate of approval for the device in 1981. This approval has been transferred to our company since November 25, 1984. You will find copies of these approvals enclosed.

Currently the device is activated by pulling a dash mounted electrical switch which activates an electric solenoid valve, allowing air to pass from in air tank to the Onspot air chambers. In the future we may use a push pull air switch mounted at the dash which would get air supply from the tank or a manifold, thus eliminating the solenoid valve (see Figure 1).

On vehicles with air-mechanical brakes, it is common to use air from the secondary air reservoir, or primary if that is all that is available. On vehicles with hydraulic brakes we provide an auxiliary air system which consists of a Delco compressor, an air reservoir, and a limit switch to keep the pressure between 85 and 110 psi (See Figure 2).

As can be seen from the drawings, the device is pneumatically actuated, and then powered by the tire of the vehicle. As the velocity of the vehicle increases the angular velocity of the chainwheel increases. The device is not warrantied if engaged above 25 mph, and when engaged the top speed of operation is 45 mph. The chains may be disengaged at any speed within the operating envelope. Please note the Operating Instructions and Recommendations enclosed.

Also enclosed is a summary of test results which have been selected from several independent tests on the product. These tests will be available for your review at your request. Please call me If you have any questions or for additional material.

Sincerely,

Wayne D. Buhler Director of Engineering Onspot, Inc.

cc: Dr. Carl Clark Inventor Contaxct code NRD-12

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 86-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- President and Owner, Team Visions, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 22 1986

Mr. Steven R. Taylor President and Owner Team Visions, Inc. P.O. Box 85 Tujunga, CA 91042-0085

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about regulations that apply to the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums. According to your letter, you intend to put worn or damaged brake drums through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drums, enlarging them enough so that they can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

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 (the "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 and is limited to the regulations administered by this agency. You may wish to contact a local attorney concerning applicability of other Federal or state requirements to your business.

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 drum, whether sold new, used, or reconditioned, 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 brake drum is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be 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 Vehicle Safety Act.

In all of the instances discussed so far, the legal responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act would not be on you as the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums but instead on your customer, i.e., the vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or repairer. However, your customers might provide particular specifications for brake drums or request information from you in order to fulfill their responsibilities under the Act.

You should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act places certain responsibilities on all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to the equipment being produced. In particular, as discussed by an enclosed information sheet, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge.

We note that since you would be a manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums rather than a manufacturer of entirely new brake drums, there is an issue of whether you are a manufacturer for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act or instead a person who repairs used motor vehicle equipment. While a manufacturer of brake drums is subject to the Act's defect provisions as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a person who repairs used brake drums is not. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the nature of your planned operations would make you a manufacturer under the Act.

Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that the term "manufacturer" means "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.. The dictionary defines "manufacture" as "the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale . . ." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition).

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops.

It is our opinion that the combined operation of fusing new material to brake drums and then re-machining the drums to meet new drum specifications constitutes a significant manufacturing operation rather than the type of operation performed in repair shops. Accordingly, we have concluded that you would be considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 16,1986

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Chief Council 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn : Officer Engineering Dwaine Perrin

Dear Mr. Perrin:

This letter is a follow-up to the telephone conversation that you had with my secretary, Anita Puckett, a few weeks ago concerning any regulations that may govern us as a reconditioned brake drum manufacturer.

Team Visions, Inc., i s a new corporation that has intentions of doing business as a brake drum reconditioning service, whereby, we put a worn or damaged brake drum through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drum enlarging it enough so that it can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

Our anticipated date of opening is September 1, 1986. In light of this, please send a letter stating your findings of any regulations that may govern us to the undersigned at the letterhead address.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Steven R. Taylor President and Owner SRT:Sz

ID: 77-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America - Western Region

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for clarification of the effect of the preemption section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act upon the use of quartz iodine headlamps by State fire and police organizations. Your letter was prompted by mine of January 18, 1977, to Jack D. Gross, Jr., National Sales Manager of Marchal America, in which I concluded that the preemption section was inapplicable to the conversion of vehicles by owners after initial manufacture.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) reads in pertinent part:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . 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 establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

In my opinion, the preemption language is irrelevant to your primary concern of assuring local agencies that the Federal government has no objection to their use of headlamps that do not comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As I explained to Mr. Gross, the purpose of the preemption doctrine is to ensure uniform national manufacturing standards reserving to States and political subdivisions thereof the right to establish standards setting a higher level of performance on vehicles procured for their own use.

We have always construed this language narrowly. You have not informed us of the existence of any State law, municipal ordinance, or any other legislative act by a State or political subdivision establishing a level of performance for headlamps on publicly owned vehicles, that a manufacturer must meet, and thus the preemption question, in a legal sense, does not arise.

Instead, you have presented the situation of a few State and local agencies (city police, highway patrol, fire department, sheriff) who wish to substitute quartz iodine headlamps on publicly owned vehicles. Although 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) prohibits the removal of vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard, that prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, there is no Federal legal objection to any interested State or local agency replacing its conventional headlamps with quartz iodine ones. Indeed, we would be interested in knowing the views of these agencies after a period of use.

We understand from your letter that the headlamps in question are imported as conforming to the motorcycle headlamp requirements of SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. As long as the headlamps do not exceed the candlepower maxima established by J584, and are not advertised or sold to the general public as suitable for use on passenger cars Marchal America would not appear to be violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

SINCERELY,

MARCHAL AMERICA WESTERN REGION

February 9, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Taylor Vinson

Re: Your File No. N40-30

This is in reply to your correspondence dated January 18, 1977 and our phone conversation on February 7, 1977 regarding headlamp replacements.

Semi-sealed H-4 Iodine headlamp replacements are currently being used by the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, City Police, Fire and Highway Departments in ten of the eleven states in my region. The primary usage of these lamps is in critical need rural areas. General usage is prohibitive because these units cost four to five times more than standard units. Each department that has installed these units conducted cost vs. benefits testing. In each case the results were consistent. Benefits are:

Low Beam: 1. Less glare to opposing drivers;

2. More uniform light pattern on road and shoulder;

3. Light color makes it easier on eyes;

4. Dramatic reduction of whiteout caused by stray vertical light in fog and snow.

High Beam: 1. Besides the obvious increase in distance, peripheral vision is greatly increased allowing the operators to see pedestrians, side traffic and livestock at a great enough distance to allow them to react safely. High beam is primarily used in Code 2 or Code 3 operation where standard headlamps don't give adequate illumination for safe operation of high speed emergency vehicles.

Additional

Benefits: 1. If a rock or debris cracks the lens, you don't lose your headlight in a critical emergency situation;

2. Bulb life span is comparable to standard units and the intensity doesn't deteriorate with age.

We are not talking about an experimental unit that has never been tested. These headlamps are manufactured under the extremely tough international lighting standards known as the "E" or European Code. Every other country in the world has now adopted this standard including our neighbors in Canada. These headlamps are in daily use by some of the most respected state and local safety organizations in the country.

The reason I asked for the clarification on 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) was because the California Highway Patrol has an extremely hazardous fog condition in their central valley. They were interested in testing these units because of their low beam qualities in fog and snow, but they wanted 1392(d) interpreted in writing to make sure it was o.k.

The pertinent part of Section 1392(d) reads:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any state or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

My interpretation of this section prior to your letter was our headlamp came under the classification of motor vehicle equipment and in each case of its use a higher standard of performance was established in both public and operator safety with the use of this unit.

These units are being imported under federal standard 108 J584 for motorcycle use. The spread from motorcycle to vehicle usage starts when a police department discovers that the headlamps that work so well in their motorcycles plug right into their patrol cars.

The international lighting standard mandates that the bulbs be interchangable regardless of the manufacturer, reflector size or shape of the lamp. This was done so that no matter where you travelled, replacement bulbs would be readily available regardless of the type of vehicle.

I respectfully submit these comments for you to consider.

CHAD DORNSIFE

ID: 1984-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 21, 1984 Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983, regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion; in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.

I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.

We note that you have added two further functions since last writing us about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.

In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose to offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the "approval" or "disapproval" of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government "approves" or "disapproves" aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to "approve" or "disapprove." We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304 (213) 347-2695

December 15, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel, Frank Berndt, Vincent Taylor

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your response letter dated November 22nd and my subsequent phone conversation to Mr. Taylor. Both sets of communications have indicated a lack of approval but no legal disapproval of my product. The purpose of this letter is to achieve approval from your department.

In response to the letter or Mr. Berndt, I do not believe that there is any potential confusion between my "emergency flasher" indication and "brake" indication since they are presently totally different in current usage. One of these is normally used for a stopped vehicle while the other is used to indicate that a vehicle is stopping. In either case the response of the other driver is to stay clear of the indicating vehicle, thus the desired response is in all cases preserved. If this still concerns you and this is the only obstacle to approval then the emergency response can be changed to a flashing CAUTION indication.

In response to my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor, your concern was solely related to the "brake" indication in that the moving arrows might cause a confusion to other drivers. I strongly disagree with this opinion as my road tests confirm. The movement of the arrows cause the operator of other vehicles to be able to respond at least as quickly as with just the normal brake indications. I do expect that an improvement does exist because the physiology of the human mind is such that a driver can respond to movement very quickly due to origins of the human species. The normal brake indication depends upon this by a causing an intensity transition, but this can be ineffective due to the wide range of brightnesses of brake lights found on automobiles today which can cause a confusion if the operator is distracted during night-time operation. You stated that your objections would not exist if the arrows were not moving. I agreed that a very slow movement would be ineffective and distracting. The difference between our positions is just the speed of movement, infinity being your position, my position being approximately 3/4 second to complete the arrow or approximately the same speed of a blinker I think further consideration would show that my proposal is in no way detrimental and may actually be a safety feature (the speed may be further increased if it will allow me to obtain an approval).

Further functions have been added to reflect a need of at least my local police department. These needs are that emergency flashers only indicate a problem but not the type of attention needed. Thus I have added two indications for this identification:

BREAKDOWN ROAD SERVICE REQUEST

POLICE HELP POLICE AID REQUEST

In conclusion, it appears that active disapproval is not forthcoming from your department but I still would appreciate obtaining at least a passive approval. Your comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell

ID: 1984-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Public Instruction; Montana

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety Office of Public Instruction State Capitol Helena, Montana 59620

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 12, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of ordinary passenger vehicles, vans, and motor coaches, as school buses. You posed three separate questions regarding school district liability when these vehicles are used to transport school children.

Your first question asked for information on school district liability when 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards are used to transport school children on activity trips. First, as you are probably aware, NHTSA does not hold schools responsible for operating noncomplying vehicles. Our enforcement authority is directed toward the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer that sells the noncomplying vehicle. Accordingly, there is no Federal prohibition against the operation by schools of noncomplying school buses. However, the laws of your state might not allow the use of such vehicles for the transportation of school children. Further, operation of noncomplying vehicles can pose insurance problems as qell as the possibility of private liability in the event that a child is injured in an accident involving one of those vehicles. You might want to discuss the issue of school district liability further with your insurance company and attorney.

Your first question can be restated to ask, "Do 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which are used to transport school children on activity trips have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards?"

The floor debates on the Motor Vehicle Safety and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 show that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of school bus to include so-called "activity buses" in the definition. Therefore, activity buses are subject to the same Federal school bus safety standards which apply to buses that transport children to and from school.

A vehicle that is significantly used to transport school children to and from school and related events must be certified as complying with the school bus safety standards if the vehicle is a bus, and if the date of manufacture of that vehicle is after April 1, 1977. Under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3, Definitions, a bus is defined as a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) designed for carrying more than 10 persons including the driver. Thus, a 9 passenger van would not be considered a bus nor a school bus under the Federal regulations. The school bus safety standards would not apply to such a vehicle. On the other hand, your 12 and 16 passenger vans are considered school buses since passenger capacity is above 10 persons.

Whether these 12 and 16 passenger vans must comply with the safety standards depends on the date of manufacture of those vehicles. The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which directed NHTSA to issue safety standards for new school vehicles, established the date on which the standards were to become effective. The comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective on April 1, 1977. If your 12 and 16 passenger vans were manufactured in or imported into this country on or after April 1, 1977, they must be certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your second question asked about school district liability when "regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger)" are used to transport children to and from school. Again, the question we are addressing here is whether these vehicles must comply with the school bus safety standards. The answer to this question is no. A motor vehicle carrying 9 passengers is not considered a bus or a school bus under the Federal regulations.

Your third question asked, "What problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?" As discussed previously, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, together with the school bus safety standards, require that these buses be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such. Therefore, although NHTSA could not bring an enforcement action against a school using noncomplying school vehicles, a school district using a Greyhound-type motor coach may encounter problems obtaining insurance for its noncomplying vehicle. Further, the potential for private liability in the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles is very high.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 12, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Bern Chief Council NHTSA NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Bern:

I am inquiring about material I have read recently about school bus safety. Particularly statements from your legal people about the use of vans and over-the-road coaches to haul school children.

State Superintendent Argenbright has asked that I contact you for some specific information about 1) school district liability when they use regular 9, 12 or 16 passenger vans to transport school children on activity trips, 2) the possible liability when they use regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger) to transport children to and from school and, 3) what problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?

I am talking about the use of school vehicles that do not meet our state or national "school bus" standards.

Rather than sending just printed material, I would appreciate receiving written information from you or one of your staff members, concerning these issues.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety

cc: Ed Argenbright

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued 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 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice

ID: 1983-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Corporation -- William K. Sweeney, Assistant General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William K. Sweeney Assistant General Counsel Grumman Corporation 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, New York 11747

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection system under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.

You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.

Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service." As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the, intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 22, 1983 Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR Section 571.208

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of Mr. Steven Wood of your department.

I represent Grumman Olson, a division of Grumman Allied Industries. Inc., and a manufacturer of aluminum truck bodies. As I indicated to Mr. Wood, Grumman Olson is now embarking on the manufacture and distribution of a new minivan completely built by it at its own facilities. This minivan is called the Kubvan (R), and is designed for delivery and utility service. A specification sheet on the Kubvan minivan is enclosed for your information.

Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right hand drive versions of the Kubvan, the latter for use by the United States Postal Service. A number of other potential customers, including Canada Post Corporation, have expressed interest in the right hand drive Kubvan, and that expression of interest necessitates my writing to you.

Specifically, a question has arisen concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, 49 CFR S 571.208. Paragraph S4.2.2 of the safety standard sets out the basic occupant crash protection required for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; namely, a lap and shoulder belt protection system. Certain classes of light trucks are excluded, such as "vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service...". Vehicles of the latter type are permitted to carry a lap belt system only.

Grumman Olson is desirous of selling the right hand drive Kubvan to customers other than the United States Postal Service (USPS). As we interpret Paragraph S4.2.2, it basically equates light trucks with passenger cars, in terms of crash protection. USPS vehicles were specifically excluded (and permitted to be equipped with lap belts only) because of their unique operating environment (i.e., generally lower speeds, frequent stops, and the need for the driver to exit and enter the vehicle quickly, and/or reach out of the vehicle to service mail boxes).

Given this interpretation, Grumman Olson would be entitled to sell right hand drive Kubvans to any and all interested customers, provided that all such vehicles are equipped with a full lap and shoulder belt restraint system, except for those sold to the USPS. However, the wording of Paragraph S4.2.2 literally implies that if Grumman Olson were to sell right hand drive Kubvans to parties other than USPS, the vehicle might not technically qualify as one "designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service". This, in turn, might mean that Grumman Olson (a) would be required to equip all right hand drive Kubvans with lap and shoulder belt restraint systems (including those destined for the United States Postal Service, which would render the vehicle unsuitable for their use), and/or (b) would be required to retrofit any right hand drive Kubvans presently in USPS inventory with lap and shoulder belt systems (such vehicles not having a lap belt system only as permitted by the Paragraph). We feel this end result is inconsistent with the intent of Paragraph S4.2.2.

I have had telephone discussions with Mr. Wood and with Mr. Bob Gardner of NHTSA's engineering staff, relative to interpretation of the Paragraph in question. Both of these individuals felt that our analysis of the Paragraph was consistent with its intent and expressed no difficulty with (1) our selling right hand drive Kubvans (equipped with lap and shoulder belt system) to customers other than the USPS and (2) our continuing to sell right hand drive Kubvans to the USPS, with lap belt system only (and without the need to retrofit any vehicles presently in USPS inventory). I asked Mr. Wood about the possibility of a formal response from NHTSA approving our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2, and he suggested that I write to you to request such a response.

I would, therefore, appreciate your discussing this matter with Mr. Wood, and, if you agree, arranging for a letter from your office to me, concurring in our interpretation of Paragraph S4.2.2 and approving sales of right hand Kubvans as set out in the previous paragraph.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM K. SWEENEY Assistant General Counsel

WKS:mz

ID: nht81-2.35

DATE: 06/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreader Association, Inc.

COPYEE: AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOC., INC.; HARRISON FEESE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/7/90 LETTER FROM PERRY FAULKNER TO WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; 3/13/91 LETTER FROM JAMIE MCLAUGHLIN FISH TO BILL MCCOLLUM (STD. 117; A37; STD. 119)

TEXT: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.

Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject. We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.

Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably "pneumatic tires," as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR @ 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR @ 570.9(a) and 49 CFR @ 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.

Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers of these tires. According to the representations made by your organization and some individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of States, and because the manufacturers' subjective intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).

As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.

Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importing these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 27, 1981

Stephen Kratzke Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

NTDRA would like to again thank you for taking the time to work with us and the industry regarding the importation of used truck tires, that do not bear the DOT symbol, into the United States.

We are at this time requesting a clarification of the March 11, 1981 letter from Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of your agency, to Mr. Harry Shirai. A copy of that letter is appended. On page two of the letter, in discussing ways that used tire casings can be brought into the United States, the third option states that the tires must "be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119." Does that mean that a foreign manufacturer can mail to both the NHTSA and the Customs Department a "blanket" certification stating all tires produced of a certain size and type at a given time had met, at the time of manufacture, the requirements of Standard No. 119 and thus satisfy the legal requirements of NHTSA and Customs for entry into the United States? If so, would it be necessary for each importer to bear a copy of such a letter with each shipment or tires, or would the letter on file at NHTSA and Customs be adequate?

As you know, there exists in this country a severe shortage of used truck tire casings to be used for retreading. NTDRA congratulates NHTSA's efforts to insure that only safe casings be used in the retreading process. Hopefully we can work together to find a solution to bring into this country safe casings that were made for use in foreign countries and subsequently do not bear the DOT symbol.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Roy Littlefield Director, Government Relations

ID: nht81-2.47

DATE: 07/14/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, describing a situation in which a railroad car full of new tires caught on fire. As a result of the damage caused to the tires by the fire, Firestone's quality control staff determined that the tires could no longer be certified as safe for highway use. The railroad company has refused to pay your claim for damage to the tires unless Firestone releases the damaged tires to the railroad company. You stated that the railroad company will either sell the tires through its salvage outlets or use the tires on company vehicles. You ask whether you can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad company.

If Firestone releases the tires and the railroad company sells the tires or uses them on the public roads, both Firestone and the railroad company would violate an express provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) ("the Safety Act"). Therefore, you can rightfully withhold the tires from the railroad company.

Your letter did not indicate whether the damaged tires were tires for passenger cars or tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. In either case, the tire manufacturer is required to certify that each tire fully complies with certain marking requirements and with specified performance requirements (resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance) of Safety Standard No. 109 in the case of passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.109) or of Safety Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger car tires (49 CFR @ 571.119). This certification is made by the manufacturer by molding the letters "DOT" into the sidewall of the tire.

As a result of the damage to this particular shipment of tires, your company has determined that this certification is no longer valid. This determination obligates Firestone to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of the tires.

Without the "DOT" symbol, these tires would clearly not comply with the requirements of either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). provides:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . .

Firestone would violate this prohibition if it were to deliver tires to the railroad company which were not certified as complying with the appropriate safety standard. The railroad company would violate this prohibition if it sold or offered to sell uncertified tires, or if uncertified tires were used by the company on the public roads (introduction in interstate commerce). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies penalties of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108, and each tire delivered by Firestone or sold or used by the railroad company would constitute a separate violation of section 108. Section 109 specifies that the maximum civil penalty which can be imposed for a series of related violations, which this would be, is $ 800,000 for each violator.

You indicated that Firestone would not release the damaged tires for use in any case, because of the potential safety hazard. I hope that this response reinforces that position. Should you need any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please show this letter to the interested railroad company so that it will realize the serious nature of its contemplated actions.

SINCERELY,

Firestone TIRE COMPANY

June 24, 1981

The National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Steven Kratzke

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Pursuant to our phone conversation this morning, we would appreciate hearing from you and the National Highway Safety Administration as to the disposition to be made on tires which have been exposed to fire while in transit. We experience approximately five of these situations per year and recently we've experienced an incident where the carrier is demanding that we release to them the salvage.

In this particular incident, the carload of 1,596 tires was shipped from our Decatur, Illinois Plant back in June of 1979. Enroute the carrier noticed a missing hasp and ordered the car confined to its repair track until a new hasp could be affixed to the car. In the process of welding the hasp on to the car a small fire started which the carrier's employees quickly extinguished. After a break for lunch and the subsequent return from lunch the car was again found ablaze. The car was again extinguished by both the railroad's employees and the local fire department.

Our Quality Control people inspected the tires and found them to be in a condition not suitable for highway use. The railroad retained outside experts in this area and our company likewise retained experts to evaluate the condition of these tires to confirm basically what our Quality Control people originally decided. Both these outside firms cannot guarantee the safety of these tires. The railroad has refused to pay our claim unless we release these tires to them to be salvaged through their salvage outlets to the public or for use on their own company vehicles. We find this railroad's request in total disregard of public safety.

We would appreciate your confirming in writing basically how the National Highway Safety Administration feels about this and whether or not a manufacturer of tires, such as Firestone is correct in wanting to scrap these tires in such a manner that they are never used on the highway. We are confirming at this time that we have no intentions of releasing these tires to this particular railroad but would appreciate your decision as to whether or not we can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad for their salvaging, which in the end will hopefully produce a settlement from the railroad for the value of these tires which they destroyed.

Thank you.

C. L. BIDDLE SUPERVISOR OF CLAIMS GENERAL TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

ID: nht81-2.6

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Boyd, Payne, Gates & Farthing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MARCH 20, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Charles E. Payne Boyd, Payne, Gates & Farthing Virginia National Bank Building Suite 1240 One Commercial Place Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the problem plaintiffs' lawyers in civil cases have in obtaining certain data from foreign manufacturers of automobiles. Your letter specifically asked if there are any Federal safety standards concerning the crashworthiness of automobile seats. You state that the Department of Transportation informed you by letter that there are no such standards.

This is incorrect. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for vehicle seats in passenger cars and other vehicles. The standard requires passenger seats to be able to withstand forces equal to twenty times the weight of the seat without collapsing. This is a static test in which the force is applied directly to the seat. The standard does not, however, require a dynamic crash test of vehicles to determine seat integrity, such as the tests used by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety cited in your letter. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), Toyota Motor Company is required to certify that its vehicles comply with Safety Standard No. 207. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your information.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you require any further information (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

March 5, 1981

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Congressman Bill Whitehurst forwarded to you my recommendation concerning legislation or regulations aimed at forcing foreign manufacturers of mechanical products imported into this country, to file for record with your agency certain data accessable to private litigants. You sent him a reply letter dated February 18th and he sent me a copy.

Your letter was informative and helpful. I would even agree that the regulations that you referred to are of some help. However, I do not think they truly meet the problem.

A news release issued by the Department of Transportation reported that foreign imports were notably less safe than their American counterpart automobiles. I also have in my possession in connection with litigation I am now pursuing against Toyota, data from various organizations around the country which data discloses that occupant safety and crashworthiness are of little concern to those who manufacture their cars and ship them into our country from abroad. The same data also diclosed that American manufacturers, on the other hand, have by-in-large, done very well in comparison to the foreign manufacturers in the area of crashworthiness and occupant safety.

I believe that most attorneys who practice products liability litigation will agree that the greatest single impetus for improved crashworthiness and occupant safety of American automobiles has been our system of tort liability, and the effectiveness of our courts and plaintiff's counsel in bringing to light defects and unsafe designs in automobiles.

Apparently however, most notably our Japanese friends have by-in-large not been subjected to the same examination by litigation of their design concepts and practices with respect to occupant safety. I for one am convinced, as are a good many of my colleagues at the plaintiff's bar, that part of the reason for this is the substantial difficulty of gaining access to files and records of the foreign manufacturers. This same difficulty was a subject of an in depth investigative reporting effort by "60 Minutes" last year. Perhaps you are aware of it.

The problem has not been an inability to gain in personam jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturers. That is the easiest part of it. However, once they are in court, they have proven very adroit at using every conceivable tool to preclude production for examination by plaintiff's experts of such things as design specifications, computer simulation data, and films of crash testing. Their excuses include the language barrier, the transoceanic legistics and communications probIems, as well as the "We are a multi-national corporation with warehouses full of documents, and it is impossible to locate what you want" excuse.

I believe that if the Japanese and Germans, whose cars are the principal culprits, were forced by the spector of substantial civil liability quickly and efficiently imposed, they would build their cars with the crashworthiness and occupant protection equal to American cars. I also dare say that if they had to do so, they could not market their cars at a price competitive to American makes.

While I appreciate the intent of the regulations you cite which require all automobiles imported to be certified to meet the Department of Transportation safety standard, that program does not appear to have yet begun to prove effective. One reason is that the Department of Transportation safety standards are by no means comprehensive. In particular, with respect to the suit I now have against Toyota, the Department of Transportation has advised me by letter J that there is no safety standard currently in existence with respect to the crashworthiness and design safety of passenger seats. The decedent, whom I epresent, died as a result of his seat collapsing upon moderate rear end impact making it possible for his upper torso, neck and head to be whipsawed, and in turn resulting in a fatal injury to the brain stem. It is with somewhat bitter irony that I refer you to report A-4650.01, dated November 1973, issued by General Environments Corporation and prepared for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That report and others like it cite over and over again that upon moderate impact from the rear, the seats of most of the foreign imports collapsed, exposing the occupant to serious and avoidable risk injury, whereas the same testing done on American makes shows a dramatically lower incidence of seat failure.

If I have been misinformed, and if there truly is a Department of Transportation safety standard concerning the crashworthiness of automobile seats, I would appreciate a copy of such standard. Also, if there is such a standard I should like to report that I have serious reason to believe that Toyota automobiles manufactured between 1973 and 1979 do not meet anyones safety standard with respect to the design of their seats, and especially the bucket seats.

I appreciate your time and attention to this letter and its intent.

Yours very truly,

BOYD, PAYND, GATES & FARTHING

Charles E. Payne

CEP:wjb

cc: Mr. James Kelly