ID: lamb.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to modify a Plymouth Grand Voyager lowered floor minivan van for a driver with quadriplegia. You explain that your client has limited strength and range of motion due to her disability and needs to replace the vehicle's original steering column and air bag with a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. The new steering wheel would be too small to be fitted with an air bag.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that removes the air bag and modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the vehicle's original steering wheel and air bag would affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the vehicle manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, the seller should advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

As we mentioned in an earlier letter to you, NHTSA is undertaking rulemaking to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, the agency is proposing to give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking is enclosed for your information.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
ref:VSA
d.12/1/98

ID: nht78-1.8

DATE: 11/20/78

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

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nov. 20, 1978

Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven, Connecticut 06507

Dear Mr. Cheetham:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a trend label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperture grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations of the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.

While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(l)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 19, 1978

Dr. Cecil Brenner Automotive Rating NRM-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Brenner:

Subject: Part 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading page 30549 of the Federal Register, dated Monday, July 17, 1978.

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of October 19, 1978, concerning the labeling requirements of the subject part.

The Armstrong Rubber Company requests an interpretation of this section. As stated to you, Armstrong requested that the treadwear, traction, and temperature identification be added to our regular label, which identifies a specific tire. In addition, the legend labeled as figure 2 in the subject part number would be affixed to the tread surface a maximum of 1/2" from the end of the label, which has the identification symbols. In this manner we will minimize the possibibities of mislabeling tires.

The Armstrong Rubber Company has requested that only one identification symbol be placed on the label which clearly defines the traction and temperature resistance of the particular tire. This would replace indelibly circling on the label one of the three grades under the traction and temperature resistance characteristics.

The Armstrong Rubber Company respectfully requests that part 575.104 be modified so that the labeling can be interpreted as indicated above.

Please find attached a copy of the two labels that the Armstrong Rubber Company would appreciate your consideration and concurrence. Label number 2, which is the legend describing the D.O.T. quality grading, was not printed verbatum and will be changed as shown in figure 2 of part 575.104. Figure 2 on page 30552 of the Federal Register was changed to reflect your thinking on the traction grades as A, B, C.

I trust this request will meet with your approval. If additional information is requested, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance

cc: J.A. Walsh R. L. Donnelly

RWC/eam

ID: nht81-2.23

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gateway Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 12 1981

NOA-30

Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries, Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest, Illinois 60429

Dear Mr. Miskowicz:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.

You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckle force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. As explained below, the answer is no. The buckle force requirements only apply to buckles tested in a loaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restraint belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6 month-old-test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.

Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has to conform to the "requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209." No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 2, 1981

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Vladislav Radovich

Dear Mr. Radovich:

Enclosed please find three prototype samples of our child seat buckle we would like to market. Gateway Industries is a major supplier of seat belts to General Motors and Chrysler and we hope to expand our product line by offering this item to child seat manufacturers.

We feel that our buckle meets all of the specifications of Standard 213, however, there is one area we wish you would clarify in regard to the 12 lb. to 20 lb. release force. (You may recall my phone call to you in the first week of January.)

Our buckle meets the letter of the spec as written. That is, as specified in S5.4.3.5 we meet S6.2 before and after the test specified in S6.1. Standard 213 makes no mention of how to test the buckle in an unloaded state. Does the 12 to 20 lbs. apply to the unloaded condition?

The three enclosed buckles do meet the 12 lb. minimum in the unloaded state, however, we are marginal and I doubt we can consistently obtain this on a large volume product basis. I theorize that on cccasion we will have release efforts of 10 lbs. in the unloaded state. Would this mean that we do not comply with Standard 213? With the slightest load applied to the buckle (approximately 5 lbs.), the release efforts increase and we again are in compliance. Also, in the "Summary of Final Rule Provisions", No. 5 states the requirements in 209 apply and S5.4.2 states S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 209 apply. Does this mean that only the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) apply or do all the requirements of 209 apply?

We thank you for your time in reviewing this matter and would appreciate your written response. Please feel free to include any comments you may have concerning our product.

I would like to add that our buckle has been dynamically tested to Standard 213 on a Strolee Seat System at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and proven successful. We can guarantee a tensile load of 750 lbs.

Truly yours,

GATEWAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John S. Miskowicz Manager, Design Engineering

ID: nht81-1.26

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Travel Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Ed Detwiler President Travel Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 248 Orland, CA 95963

Dear Mr. Detwiler: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981 with reference to the automotive aftermarket cruise control device offered by a competitor of yours which you believe does not comply with paragraph SS.3.1 of Standard No. 101.

That section, in pertinent part and in conjunction with Table 1 requires the illumination of the identification of automotive vehicle speed controls that are hand-operated if located other than on the floor, floor console, steering column or in the windshield header area. You have told us that the installation instructions advise that the control module "be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console, as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location."

Standard No. 101 is intended to apply to vehicles as delivered to their purchasers, rather than to individual aftermarket equipment items installed on them. If the device you describe is added after first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement that the device comply with Standard No. 101. If it is added before such purchase, the dealer selling the vehicle would have the legal responsibility of insuring that the identification of any dashboard mounted control was illuminated. We do not require a separate lamp for each control, and ambient illumination provided by lights for other controls could be sufficient to meet the requirements.

Under the circumstances, the manufacturer or importer of the device you describe would not appear to be in violation of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 12, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U. S. Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to notify your agency that at present an automotive aftermarket cruise control device is being marketed in this country which is in direct violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, section 5.3.1.

The unit in question is called the Zemco Zt and Zemco Ztll currently marketed by Zemco, Inc. 12907 Alcosta Blvd. , San Ramon, California. These wits feature a control module , which according to the manufacturer' s installation instructions ad advertising materials is designed to be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console , as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location. This control module is not illuminated as required under the aforementioned standard.

The result of this violation is obvious. When the module is installed as recommended, it becomes a safety hazard. Travel Accessories, Inc., as a domestic manufacturer of a electronic cruise control which is in full accord of all U. S. Department of Transportation safety standards , objects that this product which is manufactured in Taiwan be allowed to be continued to be sold in this country while in obvious violation of our own government's regulations.

Continued condoning of this violation perpetuates a unfair competitive advantage. Zemco, Inc. currently enjoys a pricing advantage over Travel Accessories and other domestic manufacturers of this product category because of lower costs of materials and labor by not having to meet U.S. standards.

Travel Accessories, Inc. owns two plants in the United States totalling over 150,000 square feet and employing in excess of two hundred and fifty people. We have spent over a three year period of research and development and a great deal of funds bringing to market a quality piece of merchandise which complies with all of our own government regulations at what we believe to be a fair ad equitable price. file are forced to meet stringent government requirements ad standards in those countries we attempt to export to, only to find that a product such as this finds its way into our own domestic channels of distribution unregulated, with a minimal investment.

We request that the department of transportation take immediate action to have existing inventories of this product upgraded to meet all safety standards of the U. S. Department of Trade and further requires all future shipments of product received in this country to meet those stated requirements, as well.

I await your earliest response.

Sincerely,

Ed Detwiler President ED/sv

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

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

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:120#VSA d:4/12/94

ID: 9479

Lawrence P. White, Acting Director
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA 17122

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1.The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part 568.6).

2.Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push- out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window).

3.The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4.Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the motion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/21/94

ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 86-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ann Boriskie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION !PAR=AUTHOR

TEXT:

Ms. Ann Boriskie 6738 Firelight Lane Dallas, TX 75248

Dear Ms. Boriskie:

Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of a device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued two safety standards which affect safety belts. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, requires the push-button release for a safety belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business would be prohibited since it completely covers the safety belt push-button. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device that you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1

As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1986

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

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting

Dear Ms. Jones:

FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.

FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",

During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles".

Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.

We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 86-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rohit Vaidya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.

Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issued concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.

As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know that a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affected by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.

For further information concerning these responsibilities, please consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.

ENCLS(3)

OCC 0617

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 30, 1986

Dear Madam,

This letter is in reference to the Federal Regulations regarding automobile child safety-seats - the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 213.

I am an inventor and I expect to be receiving a Letters Patent from the US Patent & Trademark Office for a child safety seat that is designed to be an integral part of a vehicle. I would be very grateful if you could send me a list of all current applicable test standards for automobile child safety-seats (including FMVSS #213, above).

Furthermore, I understand the above referenced standard #213 is under review because of a petition that has been submitted to your office to broaden the scope of the regulation. I also would like to request: (1) information on the status of this review; and (2) a copy of the petition.

Thank you very much.

Rohit Vaidya

cc: DR. C. CLARK, NHTSA MR. W. FONTAINE