ID: nht88-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: GARY M. CEAZAN -- RIKEN AMERICA, INC.

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Attn: Tire Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GARY M CEAZAN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109, 119; LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL

TEXT: Dear Commissioner:

Riken-America, Inc. is the importer, and national distributor, of Riken Tires for the United States. Riken Tires are manufactured in Japan by Okamoto Industries, Inc., Tokyo, Japan (D.O.T. Code No. ED).

The purpose of this letter is to obtain from your office a ruling on the following question:

...If a tire carries both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings, would this tire be considered by U.S. -- D.O.T. as a dual sized tire; and, therefore, not allowed to be sold in the United States?

Specifically, Okamoto Industries, Inc. is currently producing a line of metric size radial tires for sales in both Europe and Japan and both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings appear on the tires, at different locations, for example, the size marking 165/80R13 (I.S.O.) appears mid-way on the sidwall, and the size marking, 165R13 (E.T.R.T.O.) appears above the bead (see attached sketch).

Please advise if these tires could be imported into the United States with the size markings mentioned above. You may write to me at Riken-America, Inc., P. O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90051, or telephone me at 1 (800) 421-1838. Thank you for your consideration of and response to this inquiry.

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, 1987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109: 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire si ze.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of us ing dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size design ation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. 109 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position in interpretation letters that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht88-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/6/91 letter from John Mayeda to NHTSA (OCC6034); 7/1/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to John Mayeda (A38; Std. 101); 6/4/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; 9/21/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section @5.a.s would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion base d on the facts provided in your letter.

As discussed below, the requirements of section @5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section. You described your planned radio as follows:

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off,' this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

The current language of section @5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 33416) on September 3, 1987, is as follows:

@5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) reward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the con trols and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passe nger compartment illuminated.

The first issue raised by your letter is whether section @5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since "display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with t he 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion." However, section @5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are "capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion" does not refer to illumin ations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are "capable" of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section @5.3.5. You suggested that the "off" switch of the radio would be "a means of being turned off," under that section. We agree with your suggested int erpretation. Section @5.a.5 requires that the "source of illumination" have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at "least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a dri ver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, 1987 final rule, the purpose of providing section @5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters , while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section @5.3.5's third opt ion. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to seek the interpretation of the NHTSA authorities on the FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays amended in the Federal Register dated February 3, 1987.

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off," this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

1. Said Federal Register states that new section @5.3.5 applied only to those sources of illumination which are capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion. For above radio, display illumination turns "on" or "off" simultaneously with the "on" or "off" operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion. Therefore, we think this section is not applicable to our case. Is our opinion correct?

2. If @5.3.5 should apply to the illumination of above radio, we think the "off" switch of the radio corresponds to "a means of being turned off" stated in the section. That is, the "on" or "off" switch of this radio is not the switch which controls only the illumination of the radio display, but we think it is a means of turning off the illumination source stated in this section. Is our opinion correct? We would high appreciate your prompt reply.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jh

pc: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan

ID: nht88-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Harris W. Fawell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell House of Representatives Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bu s.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those wit h a gross vehicle weight' rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's 'position is not compartmentalized. Further; because small school buses experience greate r force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening 'c rash forces'); the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle... " (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that 5402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get inform ation on Illinois' S402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin E. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 12, 1988

FROM: ROBIN C. GELBURD -- MORRISON & FOERSTER

TO: ERIKA C. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: COMPLIANCE WITH 49 C.F.R. @ 571.213 "CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GELBURD

TEXT: We represent Hasbro, Inc. and seek an opinion from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("the Agency") about whether a proposed Hasbro product would, in any way, contravene or compromise regulations promulgated by the Agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act -- specifically 49 C.F.R. @ 571.213, the regulation pertaining to Child Restraint Systems.

The product, which we have enclosed for your convenience and evaluation, is intended, inter alia, to be used in conjunction with a car seat restraint; it would be inserted inside the seat to cushion and insulate the child. It should be noted that the product, as finally marketed, will have two additional features:

1. A pocket will be added below the word "Playskool" which will contain a squeaking teddy bear made of 100% spun polyester; and

2. A set of plastic keys on a key ring, detachable with velcro, will be added on the end of the yellow tether. Each key will be 2-1/8 inches long and will have rounded edges.

Please advise me if any further information is necessary to determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within your jurisdiction.

We appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/88

FROM: L.F. ROLLIN -- COMMANDER COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: THOMAS A. COZ -- LAW DEPARTMENT NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES TO NHTSA, RE HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS/TURN SIGNALS; OCC 3469

TEXT: Dear Mr. Coz:

This is in response to your December 30, 1987, letter requesting an "Experimental Devices Permit" for high mounted stop lamp/turn signals which are installed on some North American Van Lines trailers.

No experimental device permit is necessary since these supplemental lamps are currently permitted by the California Vehicle Code. However, these lamps are in violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (FMVSS 108). FMVSS 108 specifies mounti ng heights for brake lights (not less than 15 inches nor more than 72 inches) and turn signals (not less than 15 inches nor more than 83 inches) above the level roadway surface. Both the trailer specifications and the trailer picture you provided show t he lamps to be mounted above the mounting heights specified in FMVSS 108.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmed that all brake lights and turn signals installed by a manufacturer of vehicles must conform to the FMVSS 108 mounting requirements. NHTSA does not differentiate between required or "su pplemental" lights on trailers. The FMVSS 108 restrictions on mounting do not apply to equipment installed by the owner.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ellis Hirst our staff engineer for clarification.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1987, asking for an interpretation of paragraph 54.1.1.36(b)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph specifies in pertinent part that a replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1-Aiming Adjustment Test, of SAE Standard J580 AUG79 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly. Section 6.1.1 states that "when the headlamp assembl y is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of +/-4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes." You have asked whether the aiming adjustment is to be achieved by the headlamp assembly, or by both the headlamp assemb ly "and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the vehicle."

SAE J580 applies to the design of headlamp assemblies, including the functional parts other than the headlamps, such as aiming and mounting mechanisms and hardware. The assembly may include one or more headlamps. Although the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, its design must be identical to the headlamp assembly used on the vehicle. Thus, if the aiming adjustment requirement is met by the headlamp assembly in the laboratory, it should also be met when the assembly is installed on the vehicl e. An individual headlamp installed on the vehicle need not meet the aiming adjustment test unless that headlamp is part of a headlamp assembly comprising only one headlamp.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 30, 1987 Ref: W-253-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, "Lam ps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Among its requirements, S4.1.1.36(b) (3) of Standard 108 stipulates that the replaceable bulb headlamp shall be designed to conform to Section 6.1 - "Aiming Adjustment Test" of SAE J580 AUG79, "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly.

Item 6.1.1 of the above-referenced "Aiming Adjustment Test" states that, "when the headlamp assembly is tested in the laboratory, a minimum aiming adjustment of + 4 deg. shall be provided in both the vertical and horizontal planes."

Nissan's question is whether this minimum aiming adjustment requirement is to be achieved:

1. by the headlamp assembly (by the component unit) itself, or

2. by both the headlamp assembly (as a component unit)

and by the headlamp when it is mounted on the

vehicle?

Erika Jones June 30, 1987 Page Two

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington staff at (202) 466-5284, if you have any questions or require further details. I would appreciate it if you would please also notify Mr. Hayashi when your respons e has been issued.

Sincerely,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

ID: nht88-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/88

FROM: ALICE COLLINS

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ALICE COLLINS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Ms Jones,

I am behind, to say the least, in writing you.

I am a parent of three children. Two of school age. Plus I do a lot of volunteer work for two school. Part of my volunteer work is driving for field Trips.

I checked out my new vehicle for over 1 year before buying. I chose a 1986 (new) Ply. Voyger mini-van and then in the 1986-87 school year your dept. decided they were unsafe. But in your letter to Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transport ation - Fl. Dept. of Education, Dated Aug 7, 1986.

2 I noted that Ply. Voyger was not listed. And the classification of M.P.C. was used on all mini vans, are not these classification made for several reason - and $ having one big reason for foreign vehicle.

Anyway, I am sure you have had many letter, phone calls etc in the past year over parent using vans to transport children for school trips So please review the papers enclose, I feel you see that the Ply. Voyger meet more requirements of a passenger c ar than a truck.

Please review this Mini Van. I feel my children and family are safe in my voyger than a car. No one wants to have an accident. And even the school buses that have been in accident lately have had had injurys - crush tops & sides. Where are the seat Belts?

3

I feel your Department is closing the doors to a better answers to transport our children on short field trips.

You know the driver counts for more than just the kind of vehicle. The driver should be $99[Illegible Word]

Our children are missing out on alot of short educational trips. The schools can not afford to use schools buses for the short trips.

Will Amy Ukey please read enclosed papers and let me know if there is any way to change the Department decision on the Ply. Voyger Mini-Van.

Thank you

Do you have a toll free Phone Number?

(Attachments omitted.)

ID: nht88-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Broomfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Broomfield United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Broomfield:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen Bob Carr and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C and C, Incorporated, and asked us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not conve rtibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988 The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an Alfa Romeo device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company', has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOD CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations

ID: nht88-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bob Carr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bob Carr United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Carr:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen William Broomfield and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C&C, Incorporated, and ask ed us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not convertibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docked for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988

The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 40O Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOB CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable Jon D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations