ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signature

ID: 17513mer.b-i

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about the test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a child restraint system you plan to sell. You believe that the system is a "built-in" child restraint system under Standard 213 and ask for confirmation that the restraint will not be tested in "misuse" configurations, i.e., installed on the testing apparatus in ways contrary to Mercedes-Benz's instructions for using the restraint. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it.

You describe the restraint as follows:

The system is composed of two parts; an integrated booster cushion and an add-on impact shield. The booster cushion is operated by a push-button. When activated, a portion of the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with the system raises to form the booster cushion. . . .[Daimler-Benz AG's (DBAG's)] integrated child restraint system is a progressive system designed for use with children as they grow older. The impact shield is designed for use in conjunction with the booster seat for children who weigh 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lbs.). The impact shield is secured directly in front of the child by the lap and shoulder belt with the "legs" of the shield stabilized by being placed on both sides of the booster cushion. Without the presence of the booster cushion, the "legs" of the impact shield would collapse making use of the shield alone unrealistic. The design of the impact shield acts to secure the child's torso and to keep the child's legs fixed. Children who weigh 18 to 36 kg. (40 to 80 lbs.) only need the booster seat and standard lap and shoulder belt to be properly secured. Children who weigh more than 36 kg (80 lbs.) may use the conventional lap and shoulder belts.

For convenience, we have depicted these recommended weight ranges and restraint configurations in the following table:

DBAG'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Your specific questions concern how NHTSA would test the restraint. You want us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children under 40 lb., the agency would test the system using both the booster and the shield with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You also ask us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You would like us to concur that "At no time, would testing of the system be required that involved use of the shield without the booster."

We agree with some of your statements but do not agree with others. We agree that the shield would not be tested without the booster. Standard 213 defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." An impact shield is designed "to restrain. . . children." The standard also defines an "add-on" child restraint system as "any portable child restraint system." A portable impact shield that is sold to consumers without any other accompanying parts would be an add-on child restraint system and, obviously, would be tested to Standard 213's requirements without any other part. Your shield, however, is merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system. The shield cannot even support itself on its "legs" without the booster cushion. Because of these factors, we do not consider your impact shield to be an add-on child restraint system. The shield itself would not be tested to the requirements of Standard 213 without the booster.

However, there is a question of whether your restraint system (booster cushion with impact shield) is a "built-in child restraint system" under Standard 213 (S4). Configured in the mode used to restrain children under 40 lb., the restraint does not meet the standard's definition of a "built-in child restraint system."

The standard defines "built-in child restraint system" as "a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has used the term "integral" in the context of Standard 213 to mean "formed as a unit with another part." See, e.g., April 29, 1980 letter to Mr. Koziatek (copy enclosed). The add-on impact shield would not be formed as a unit with the motor vehicle. Also, the add-on shield would not be "permanently installed" in the vehicle. Because of these factors, we would not consider the add-on shield to be part of the built-in child restraint system. Accordingly, we would not use the shield when testing the restraint in Standard 213 compliance tests.

This means that the booster would have to meet Standard 213's requirements when configured so as to consist of the cushion alone with the lap and shoulder belts, without the shield, and when tested with each of the appropriate test dummies specified in the standard. The standard specifies that child restraints recommended for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. are tested with a dummy representing a 3-year-old child. Because the add-on shield is not part of the built-in system, it would not be used in the compliance test using the 3-year-old dummy, notwithstanding any instructions you might provide to consumers to use the shield. Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.

Standard 213 does not prohibit you from voluntarily providing add-on pieces to possibly improve the performance of your built-in restraint. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the restraint must provide a minimum level of safety and meet Standard 213's requirements without use of the add-on components, to ensure that the restraint will provide adequate protection in the event the add-on components are not used. Of course, if Mercedes-Benz redesigned this seat to assure that the shield was "integral" and "permanently installed," these considerations would not apply.

With respect to the restraint's configuration for older children, Standard 213 also specifies that a test dummy representing a 6-year-old child is used to test a child restraint that is recommended for children weighing 40 or more lb. Accordingly, we would also use the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests to test the booster cushion and lap and shoulder belts. We agree with you that when the booster is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt, without the shield.

There is another matter we would like to address, concerning your labeling of the restraint for children weighing as little as 20 lb. You should note that S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending booster seats for children less than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb.). This prohibition is based on test data that showed that the 20 lb. dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) was consistently ejected from booster seats in 30 mile per hour dynamic tests. (See final rule adding the prohibition to Standard 213, 59 Fed. Reg. 37167, July 21, 1994.) NHTSA believes children weighing approximately 20 to 30 lb. need a restraining system that provides a higher degree of upper torso and crotch restraint, such as that provided by convertible or toddler restraints, than that provided by a booster seat. Accordingly, the DBAG booster seat must not be recommended for children weighing less than 30 lb.

We would like to take this opportunity to make one last point before closing. In arguing that the DBAG booster seat should be tested only in accordance with your instructions for using the restraint, you state that Standard 213 "was not designed to sanction improper use or misuse of any child restraint system...." Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. It does so by requiring restraints that have features that are likely to be misused to meet performance requirements when installed on the test seat assembly in the "misuse" mode. For example, because NHTSA determined that parents were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints when installing the restraints in their vehicles, Standard 213 was amended to require restraints that have tether straps to meet the standard's requirements with the tether unattached. (See S6.1.2(a)(1), requiring restraints to be secured using only a lap belt and without a tether.) Standard 213 also addresses misuse by standardizing certain aspects of child restraints, such as the manner of installation, to reduce the chance of confusion and incorrect use resulting from such confusion. We believe that the likelihood that parents will misuse a built-in system is reduced when all the components needed to restrain the child are built into the child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.8/4/98

ID: 1984-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1984, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically inquired about the application of the requirements of section S3.5 of the standard to four possible inner door panel designs Mazda is considering.

You explained that manufacturer-installed armrests originally were simple in design and only extended a short distance sufficient to provide actual support for the arm or elbow of an occupant, but that currently manufacturers "employ inner door panel designs that embody a continous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience." You are concerned about whether the entire inner panel design would be considered an armrest.

You enclosed a drawing of four potential designs for an "inner door panel projection...that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest, ...other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls." You asked whether the entire designs would have to comply with section S3.5.1(b), which you understand applies to the whole armrest. You also asked how the designs could be changed to comply with section S3.5.1(a) or (c) and whether the agency's interpretation would differ if the designs were changed so that certain portions of the design were separate components.

First, I want to confirm that the requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), of the standard apply to the entire armrest, while S3.5.1(c) is limited to a portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area. Based on a review of the four designs, we have concluded that the shaded and unshaded portions of each design would be considered an armrest since each design is an integral unit which provides an area for an occupant to rest his or her arm. We cannot comment on how these designs could be changed to comply with sections S3.5.1(a) or (c) since your letter does not explain why you consider it impracticable to meet the requirements of those sections of the standard.

The agency's answer would differ if the designs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4 were changed so that the shaded areas of those designs were a separate component located away from what you have labeled the literal armrest and had features, such as power window switches, installed in them which would preclude their use as a conventional armrest. As to Figure 3, if the shaded portion of the design which does not have a portion of the "literal armrest" on top of it were likewise moved and included functions to preclude its use to rest the arm, the agency would not consider it an armrest. It would appear that, because of the large size of the entire shaded area shown in Figure 3, you might not be able to separate it and include sufficient design features to preclude its use as an armrest. If that could be done, the agency, again, would not consider it an armrest.

As shown by your careful discussion of the purpose of the armrest requirements of the standard, you are aware that the agency is concerned about reducing injuries caused by any protrusion in the vehicle. If you decide to modify your designs so that certain portions would not be considered armrests covered by the standard, I urge you to utilize a design which will minimize occupant injuries.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 3 August 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Mazda respectfully requests consideration of this letter seeking the interpretation of terminology used in S3.5, Armrests, of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda understands that the requirements of S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest". This term has been generically used to define a protrusion mounted on the inner door panel and situated in such a manner as to allow an occupant to comfortably and conveniently rest their arm or elbow. The goal was to relieve the occupant of the fatigue that often accompanies automobile trips of extended length and provide a stable platform for the driver that decreases uneven and unnecessary movement. Originally, manufacturers installed "armrests" that were quite simple in design and extended along the length of the door only a significant distance to actually provide support to the occupant. Currently, however, many manufacturers employ inner door panel designs that embody a continuous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience.

It is in this context that some confusion arises. The obvious intent of S3.5.1 was and is to protect the occupant from potentially injurious collisions with the inner door panel. Indeed, S3.5.1(c) refers specifically to the "pelvic impact area", presumably as the location of greatest possible risk. However, S3.5.1(a) and S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest" and, in the case of designs mentioned previously, could thereby be applicable to the entire length of the inner door panel, including those locations of the inner door panel that the lower body of an occupant would not contact under an impact situation. Therefore, a possible design that could assist in the overall goal of providing occupant convenience may be prohibited by strict implementation of the term "armrest".

Mazda has conceived four possible design configurations for an inner door panel projection (see Figures 1-4) that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest and therefore in compliance with S3.5.1 (b) (Mazda currently considers it impractical to utilize the requirements of S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) relative to the depicted configurations), other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls.

Therefore, upon consideration of the preceding remarks, please examine the inner door panel configurations depicted and discuss them individually. Also, please offer any comments, suggestions or recommendations that might serve to insure adequate occupant protection, compliance with FMVSS 201, S3.5.1 (b) and maximum design flexibility. Further, please comment on the efficacy of modifying the configurations depicted so that compliance with S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) might be possible. Finally, please discuss any relevance that the continuity of the projection might impart on your interpretation; for example, the shaded area shown in Figures 1-4 being a separate component or piece.

Your consideration is most appreciated.

Thank you.

H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mls

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: 06-002617as

ID: 1985-04.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Tony P. Hall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent, Mr. C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of the Oakwood City School District, regarding the school bus regulations issued by this agency. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Superintendent Raisch is concerned with the manner in which our regulations are applied to school vans that carry 10 or more passengers. He believes that only 10 persons are allowed to be transported in a van, and requests that this number be increased to 12. You inquired into a waiver from this agency that would permit the Oakwood City School District to transport more than 10 school children in a school van.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. To begin, I would like to emphasize that Federal law does not prohibit schools from carrying more than 10 passengers in a school van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. Our regulations would permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans to the Oakwood City School District if the seller can ensure that the van meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including the safety standards we issued in 1977 for school buses.

Some background information on this subject may be helpful. Our agency has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress expressly amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, fuel systems, windows and windshields, and emergency exits. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). Thus, new 12-passenger vans sold to the Oakwood City School District are included in our definition of a "school bus," and may be sold to the school district if they meet our school bus safety standards. If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.

Superintendent Raisch suggested that NHTSA grant a waiver permitting manufacturers to sell 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not comply with the school bus safety standards. While section 123 of the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue temporary exemptions of motor vehicles from our motor vehicle safety standards, our agency has no general waiver authority. Under @ 123, our authority to grant exemption is limited to certain very specific conditions involving a limited number of vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA has no authority to provide the type of relief your constituent requests.

Mr. Raisch may also be suggesting that we change our definition of a "school bus" to permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not meet our school bus safety standards. At this time, we have no reason to believe that such a change would be in the interest of school bus safety. Our safety standards for school buses were developed to specify comprehensive requirements for school buses that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Amending our definition of a "school bus" along the lines suggested by Mr. Raisch would restrict the applicability of our school bus safety standards to a smaller group of vehicles than buses presently subject to those standards. The safety record of school buses since the issuance of our school bus safety standards in April 1977 has been remarkable, and we believe that school vans carrying 10 or more passengers should continue to afford the high levels of passenger protection currently required for school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States house of Representatives

September 30, 1985

Honorable Diane Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am enclosing copies of correspondence I received from C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of School for Oakwood, Ohio. You will note that Mr. Raisch is seeking a waiver of the number of students which can be transported in school vans. He makes the point that today's vans are built to accommodate twelve individuals.

I would appreciate your review of this suggestion and your comments with respect to the possibility of waivers being permitted.

Tony P. Hall Member of Congress

ENCLS.

September 18, 1985

Rick Carne

Dear Mr. Rick Carne: Earlier this month I discussed with one of the representatives from your Dayton office the issue concerning the minimum number of student passengers permitted transportation in a van before the van must be equipped as a bus.

Currently, the number is ten persons allowed transportation in a van. I am requesting the number be elevated to twelve. This request is based primarily upon the fact that most vans built today are designed to accomodate twelve passengers.

Attached is a document which should aid in your review of the request.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

C. Daniel Raisch Superintendent

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Notice Expires September 1, 1977

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Implementing Highway Safety Program Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety

PURPOSE:

To provide new NHTSA information regarding:

a) definition of "school bus;"

b) interpretation of "to and from school;" and,

c) implementation/affect for NHTSA and the various State and local jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND:

1-Definition of "School Bus":

NHTSA regulates the manufacture of school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehilce Safety Act of 1966 and the operation of school buses under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Regulations under these Acts have provided somewhat differing, although not conflicting, definitions of school bus.

Congress, in passing the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Almendments of 1974, defined "school bus" in terms of function rather than design. In line with this undate, all vehicles manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons and which are sold or introduced in (Illegible Word) (Illegible Word) for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, shall be considered school buses. In keeping with the (Illegible Word) of Congress as reflected in the legislative history of the 1974 amendments, these vehicles will be required to be equipped with a system of signal lamps conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Discussion related to the change may be found in the Federal Register for December 31, 1973, 40 FR 60033 (See Attachment "A") and August 26, 1976, 41 FR 36026 (See Attachment "B").

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school":

In an opinion dated May 5, 1977, the NHTSA's Chief Counsel has ruled that the phrase," to and from school in paragraph III of Highway Safety Program Standard 17, as interpreted in Notice 900, (dated April 11, 1974) is excessively narrow, and that the phrase should include any trip for a school-related event. However, buses in operation prior to April 1, 1977, for use soley in the transportation of students to and from school related events will not be required to meet the requirements of Standard 17. For ease of reference, see:

Attachment "C" Notice 900, Q and A #5, dated April 11, 1974 Attachment "D" Counsel Memo, May 5, 1977.

IMPLEMENTATION/EFFECT:

1 - Definition of "school bus" and identification and marking requirements:

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) reads as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate (Illegible Word), for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition for "bus" (49 CFR @ 571.3) will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

Therefore, the impact on ESPS #17 is as follows:

In addition to all Type I vehicles, this new definition of "school bus" will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under ESPS #17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will, therefore, have to have school bus lights as specified by the Standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 371.108).

Since these vehicles will be equipped with the school bus lighting system, ESPS #17, Section IV.3.5, requires that they comply with two other requirements for identifying school buses; i.e., they must be painted, "National School Bus Glossy Fellow," and be identified format and rear with the words SCHOOL BUS. Of course, vehicles manufactured before April 1, 1977, will not be subject to this new requirement.

2 - Interpretation of "to and from school" Effective May 5, 1977, NHTSA's position is that "to and from school" includes any trip to and from school or school related events.

Previous interpretation/definitions in NHTSA Notices, correspondence, or program manuals/materials are hereby superseded.

Fred W. Vetter

ATTACHMENTS

ID: nht94-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Gerald Plante

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

Saab has made some updates to our anti-theft alarm systems in our 1995 model year Saab 900 models. I am sorry I missed your return call. I was hoping we could have had some discussion about NHTSA's current evaluation guidelines on the telephone before submitting written materials. As a way of introduction, I have taken David Raney's place as Saab's Manager of Product Compliance.

Saab views the changes in 1995 components and designs with our anti-theft systems as de minimis ones that would enhance the anti-theft effectiveness of the 1994 alarm. To the extent permitted in 49 CFR Part 543.9, Saab is requesting permission to modify our existing exemption on the Saab 900.

The enclosed material is primarily updates of the material provided to NHTSA on March 25, 1993. Briefly, the changes involve the following:

1. Remote control added. 2. Arming/disarming of alarm/immobilizer functions from remote control only. 3. Remote control operation of the central locking system added. 4. Immobilizer function expanded by adding fuel pump and ignition disengagement to the existing starter motor disengagement.

We would very much appreciate your review of this material to confirm that NHTSA agrees with Saab on the above points. Please feel free to contact me at (404) 279-6377.

Given the definition of "carline" in Part 541.4(b), all 1995 Saab cars labelled as 900 models belong to one carline: Saab 900.

The basis of our petition for exemption is the specification of an effective anti-theft system on all Saab 900 models as standard equipment. In addition, this carline will be specified with an anti-theft radio system, which will further reduce the incidence of auto theft involving Saab cars.

Carline Description

1995 Saab 900 Carline: Body Style Model Designation Engine Variant 2-door hatchback 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 4-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 4-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door convertible 900 4 cyl., 16-valve

Anti-Theft System Description-MY 1995 Saab 900

The system consists primarily of the following components and functions:

Components

Audible signal device Electronic control module Remote control (2) Lock assembly protective covers Door-mounted switches (4) Hood-mounted switch Hatch/trunk lid-mounted switch Light-emitting diode (LED-system status indicator light) Glass breakage sensor Anti-Theft system window warning label (2) Three circuit disengagement relay (starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition)

Functions

Central door/lock/unlock from driver and front passenger door locks Dead-bolt locking of all doors and hatch/trunk lid from driver's door lock Starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition disengagement with alarm activation Horn sounding with alarm activation. Turn signal indicator flashing with alarm activation Arm/disarm from remote control Hatch/trunk lid lock/unlock and temporary disarming of the alarm from the remote control

Attachment I contains a wiring diagram depicting the Saab 900 anti-theft system circuitry and electric/electronic components. Attachment II depicts the location of the above-listed components. The vehicle depicted is the Saab 900 four-door hatchback. The two-door hatchback and convertible is identical to the four-door version, with the exception of the added rear passenger doors. Locking features for the rear passenger doors are identical to the front passenger locking features. The two-door convertible differs from the two-door hatchback only in that it has a conventional trunk, which is isolated from the passenger compartment by the rear seatbacks.

Functional Description

From the driver's, or front passenger's door lock, using the ignitiiion key or the remote control, the operator may activate or deactivate the central locking system by turning the key 45 degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively. In the locked position, all doors, including the hatch/trunk lid, are electro-mechanically locked. It is not possible to lock the doors while they are open (The lock plunger will not depress while the door is open); doors can only be locked from outside when the door is closed by using the ignition key in the door lock or the remote control.

From the dirver's door lock only, if the key is turned an additional 45 degrees in the same direction and withdrawn from this position, the dead-bolt is activated. This means that the door handles and lock devices are disengaged in the locked position, forcing an intruder to crawl through a broken window in order to enter the vehicle. The operator can not activate or deactivate the dead-bolt feature from the remote control.

From the left button on the remote control only, the alarm and immobilization features are armed. In armed condition, the vehicle doors, hatch/trunk, hood and windows are protected by the alarm system. If an attempt is made to enter the vehicle, an audible signal device (105-118 decibels) will sound for 30 seconds and the turn signals will flash for 300 seconds. If the alarm is disarmed within 30 to 300 second period, the horn is interrupted and the turn signal indicators cease flashing. If another trigger signal occurs (e.g., trunk) during this 30 or 300 second period, each function resets for another 30 or 300 second period, from the moment of retriggering.

At the same time, the starter motor, the fuel-pump and the ignition systems are automatically disabled for 30 minutes. If a renewed attempt is made to enter the vehicle, all systems will again react as described above. The anti-theft alarm can be disarmed idefinitely from the left button on the remote control, or temporarily from the hatch/trunk lid, using the right button on the remote control. In the latter case, the alarm rearms automatically ten seconds after the hatch/trunk lid is again closed.

In addition to the active systems described above, several passive anti-theft features further deter vehicle entry and theft. All door lock mechanisms are covered, and recessed inside the door, making it extremely difficult to unlock a door using an instrument slid down between the window and outer door skin. Furthermore, because the latch mechanism is located in the door, rather than in the B-pillar, it is much more difficult to unlatch the door using an instrument slid in between the door and B-or C-pillar. Also, the interior door lock plungers are of a design that is impossible to snag with a wire inserted between the weatherstip and window glass.

Functional Description continued

The Saab 900 ignition key and keylock, which is used to activate and deactivate the anti-theft system, are of a design unique to Saab, and are virtually impossible to "pick". The ignition key is also difficult to duplicate on the open market as a special blank, special key outlining equipment, and access to Saab key codes are required. Key blanks and codes are protected within the Saab corporate and dealer network.

The radio is designed to be extremely difficult to remove without the use of a special extraction tool. Once disconnected from a power-source, the radio will not function again unless a unit-specific, four-digit access code is keyed in. The radio facia is also an uncommon size, making it impractical to install in a different model vehicle.

A dash-mounted LED is used to indicate the various states of the alarm as follows:

1. Arming: The LED is lit for ten seconds.

2. Disarming: The LED is lit for one second.

System triggered during arming procedure: The LED Blinks at half-second intervals for 10 secons.

4. System triggering input cancelled during arming procedure: The LED stops blinking, and remains lit for 10 seconds.

5. Disarming from hatch/trunk lid: The LED is lit for 10 seconds after unlocking the hatch/trunk lid, and again for 10 seconds after closing it.

6. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) activated (ignition on): Teh LED is off.

7. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) pressed continuously (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

8. Glass breakage sensor, override switch (M95) activated (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

9. Disarmed system: The LED is off.

10. Armed system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

11. Activated system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

12. Self-armed three circuit disengagement: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

The system is protected against false activation from such common occurrences a shaiking or knockng, sound wave vibration, air turbulence, and temperature or light changes. In addition, the anti-theft system is equipped with a self-diagnostic system, which initiates a 10 second self-check function each time the system is armed. If a failure is detected, a fault code is stored, and the LED will blink for 10 seconds after arming the alarm (rather than remaining steadily lit for 10 seconds) as long as the code is left in the memory. Other system functions remain undisturbed. Diagnostic communication with the electronic control moduel can be initiated through the use of a special Saab Electronic diagnostic scanning tool when the alarm is unarmed.

Saab Automobile 900 MY95 Alarm Immobilizer Parts list:

900

INDEX PART NAME SAAB PART NUMBER:

%Q1. Horn assembly 44 93 443 2. El. unit anti-theft system 45 88 182 3. Window warning label 95 68 049 4. Theft security lock/unlock switch 43 27 292 5. C-lock/security lock motor driver side 43 26 773 6. C-lock/security lock motor passenger 43 26 781 side 7. C-lock/security lock motors right read 43 26 799 doors 8. Door switch driver and passenger door 44 08 423 9. Door switch rear doors 44 08 423 10. Hatch/trunk lid switch 44 08 423 11. Hood switch 43 23 259 12. Glass breakage sensor/lamp 45 50 869 Convertible (black) 45 50 851 13. Central lock unit 40 90 991 14. L.E.D. 40 90 991 15 Remote control 45 50 075

GP/abh Enclosures

ID: nht94-6.15

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Gerald Plante

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

Saab has made some updates to our anti-theft alarm systems in our 1995 model year Saab 900 models. I am sorry I missed your return call. I was hoping we could have had some discussion about NHTSA's current evaluation guidelines on the telephone before submitting written materials. As a way of introduction, I have taken David Raney's place as Saab's Manager of Product Compliance.

Saab views the changes in 1995 components and designs with our anti-theft systems as de minimis ones that would enhance the anti-theft effectiveness of the 1994 alarm. To the extent permitted in 49 CFR Part 543.9, Saab is requesting permission to modify our existing exemption on the Saab 900.

The enclosed material is primarily updates of the material provided to NHTSA on March 25, 1993. Briefly, the changes involve the following:

1. Remote control added. 2. Arming/disarming of alarm/immobilizer functions from remote control only. 3. Remote control operation of the central locking system added. 4. Immobilizer function expanded by adding fuel pump and ignition disengagement to the existing starter motor disengagement.

We would very much appreciate your review of this material to confirm that NHTSA agrees with Saab on the above points. Please feel free to contact me at (404) 279-6377.

Given the definition of "carline" in Part 541.4(b), all 1995 Saab cars labelled as 900 models belong to one carline: Saab 900.

The basis of our petition for exemption is the specification of an effective anti-theft system on all Saab 900 models as standard equipment. In addition, this carline will be specified with an anti-theft radio system, which will further reduce the incidence of auto theft involving Saab cars.

Carline Description

1995 Saab 900 Carline: Body Style Model Designation Engine Variant 2-door hatchback 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 4-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 4-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door convertible 900 4 cyl., 16-valve

Anti-Theft System Description-MY 1995 Saab 900

The system consists primarily of the following components and functions:

Components

Audible signal device Electronic control module Remote control (2) Lock assembly protective covers Door-mounted switches (4) Hood-mounted switch Hatch/trunk lid-mounted switch Light-emitting diode (LED-system status indicator light) Glass breakage sensor Anti-Theft system window warning label (2) Three circuit disengagement relay (starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition)

Functions

Central door/lock/unlock from driver and front passenger door locks Dead-bolt locking of all doors and hatch/trunk lid from driver's door lock Starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition disengagement with alarm activation Horn sounding with alarm activation. Turn signal indicator flashing with alarm activation Arm/disarm from remote control Hatch/trunk lid lock/unlock and temporary disarming of the alarm from the remote control

Attachment I contains a wiring diagram depicting the Saab 900 anti-theft system circuitry and electric/electronic components. Attachment II depicts the location of the above-listed components. The vehicle depicted is the Saab 900 four-door hatchback. The two-door hatchback and convertible is identical to the four-door version, with the exception of the added rear passenger doors. Locking features for the rear passenger doors are identical to the front passenger locking features. The two-door convertible differs from the two-door hatchback only in that it has a conventional trunk, which is isolated from the passenger compartment by the rear seatbacks.

Functional Description

From the driver's, or front passenger's door lock, using the ignitiiion key or the remote control, the operator may activate or deactivate the central locking system by turning the key 45 degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively. In the locked position, all doors, including the hatch/trunk lid, are electro-mechanically locked. It is not possible to lock the doors while they are open (The lock plunger will not depress while the door is open); doors can only be locked from outside when the door is closed by using the ignition key in the door lock or the remote control.

From the dirver's door lock only, if the key is turned an additional 45 degrees in the same direction and withdrawn from this position, the dead-bolt is activated. This means that the door handles and lock devices are disengaged in the locked position, forcing an intruder to crawl through a broken window in order to enter the vehicle. The operator can not activate or deactivate the dead-bolt feature from the remote control.

From the left button on the remote control only, the alarm and immobilization features are armed. In armed condition, the vehicle doors, hatch/trunk, hood and windows are protected by the alarm system. If an attempt is made to enter the vehicle, an audible signal device (105-118 decibels) will sound for 30 seconds and the turn signals will flash for 300 seconds. If the alarm is disarmed within 30 to 300 second period, the horn is interrupted and the turn signal indicators cease flashing. If another trigger signal occurs (e.g., trunk) during this 30 or 300 second period, each function resets for another 30 or 300 second period, from the moment of retriggering.

At the same time, the starter motor, the fuel-pump and the ignition systems are automatically disabled for 30 minutes. If a renewed attempt is made to enter the vehicle, all systems will again react as described above. The anti-theft alarm can be disarmed idefinitely from the left button on the remote control, or temporarily from the hatch/trunk lid, using the right button on the remote control. In the latter case, the alarm rearms automatically ten seconds after the hatch/trunk lid is again closed.

In addition to the active systems described above, several passive anti-theft features further deter vehicle entry and theft. All door lock mechanisms are covered, and recessed inside the door, making it extremely difficult to unlock a door using an instrument slid down between the window and outer door skin. Furthermore, because the latch mechanism is located in the door, rather than in the B-pillar, it is much more difficult to unlatch the door using an instrument slid in between the door and B-or C-pillar. Also, the interior door lock plungers are of a design that is impossible to snag with a wire inserted between the weatherstip and window glass.

Functional Description continued

The Saab 900 ignition key and keylock, which is used to activate and deactivate the anti-theft system, are of a design unique to Saab, and are virtually impossible to "pick". The ignition key is also difficult to duplicate on the open market as a special blank, special key outlining equipment, and access to Saab key codes are required. Key blanks and codes are protected within the Saab corporate and dealer network.

The radio is designed to be extremely difficult to remove without the use of a special extraction tool. Once disconnected from a power-source, the radio will not function again unless a unit-specific, four-digit access code is keyed in. The radio facia is also an uncommon size, making it impractical to install in a different model vehicle.

A dash-mounted LED is used to indicate the various states of the alarm as follows:

1. Arming: The LED is lit for ten seconds.

2. Disarming: The LED is lit for one second.

System triggered during arming procedure: The LED Blinks at half-second intervals for 10 secons.

4. System triggering input cancelled during arming procedure: The LED stops blinking, and remains lit for 10 seconds.

5. Disarming from hatch/trunk lid: The LED is lit for 10 seconds after unlocking the hatch/trunk lid, and again for 10 seconds after closing it.

6. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) activated (ignition on): Teh LED is off.

7. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) pressed continuously (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

8. Glass breakage sensor, override switch (M95) activated (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

9. Disarmed system: The LED is off.

10. Armed system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

11. Activated system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

12. Self-armed three circuit disengagement: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

The system is protected against false activation from such common occurrences a shaiking or knockng, sound wave vibration, air turbulence, and temperature or light changes. In addition, the anti-theft system is equipped with a self-diagnostic system, which initiates a 10 second self-check function each time the system is armed. If a failure is detected, a fault code is stored, and the LED will blink for 10 seconds after arming the alarm (rather than remaining steadily lit for 10 seconds) as long as the code is left in the memory. Other system functions remain undisturbed. Diagnostic communication with the electronic control moduel can be initiated through the use of a special Saab Electronic diagnostic scanning tool when the alarm is unarmed.

Saab Automobile 900 MY95 Alarm Immobilizer Parts list:

900

INDEX PART NAME SAAB PART NUMBER: %Q1. Horn assembly 44 93 443 2. El. unit anti-theft system 45 88 182 3. Window warning label 95 68 049 4. Theft security lock/unlock switch 43 27 292 5. C-lock/security lock motor driver side 43 26 773 6. C-lock/security lock motor passenger 43 26 781 side 7. C-lock/security lock motors right read 43 26 799 doors 8. Door switch driver and passenger door 44 08 423 9. Door switch rear doors 44 08 423 10. Hatch/trunk lid switch 44 08 423 11. Hood switch 43 23 259 12. Glass breakage sensor/lamp 45 50 869 Convertible (black) 45 50 851 13. Central lock unit 40 90 991 14. L.E.D. 40 90 991 15 Remote control 45 50 075

GP/abh Enclosures

ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

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

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: GAO telematics Sept 13

ID: nht92-6.39

DATE: May 25, 1992

FROM: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs for Motor Coach Industries, Inc., and Transportation Manufacturing Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to New York Program Bill No. 253

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to C.N. Littler (A39; Std. 208; VSA 103)

TEXT:

I have attached, pursuant to our telecon of May 14th, a copy of New York Governor Cuomo's Program Bill No. 253 for a departmental review. We believe that a legitimate argument of interference with Federal pre-emptive authority exists with respect to this proposed State legislation.

The Governor's Bill will require all buses, certified or licensed within New York, or entering New York and performing substantial revenue service; to be equipped with seat belts at all passenger seating positions. The Motor Vehicles Safety Act (1966) Sec 103(d) appears to prohibit the State from mandating vehicle safety standards to a higher level than the Federal standards on all but State owned vehicles.

Therefore, following your review of the attached bill, I would greatly appreciate a legal opinion regarding this issue and/or any other points of note.

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter, with kindest regards, I remain, respectfully yours.

Attachment GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL 1992 Memorandum

RE: AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to the requirement for seat belts on buses, the reexamination and disqualification of certain bus drivers, and the obligations of bus drivers and motor carriers

PURPOSE:

To increase bus driver qualification standards, to improve the system for providing information regarding the driving recOrd of bus drivers, and to require that certain buses be equipped with seat belts.

SUMMARY OR PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill adds a new subdivision 6 to section 383 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 shall be equipped with seat safety belts, except for buses operated by motor carriers which do not operate more than 100 days or more than ten thousand vehicle miles in the State.

Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 509-bb to the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the reexamination of bus drivers who have a total of three driving convictions and/or accidents within a three-year period. One of the driver's convictions or accidents will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The type of accidents which will be counted, as well as the type of reexamination to be administered, will be determined by regulation. If the driver fails the reexamination, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles may suspend, revoke or impose restrictions on the driver's license, and the driver must pass the examination before being authorized to operate a bus.

Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the bill amend sections 509-c(1)(d), 509-c(2)(d), 509-cc(1)(d) and 509-cc(2)(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively, to require one-year disqualifications of bus drivers and school bus drivers upon the conviction of three or more serious driving violations, as defined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or upon the conviction of five or more driving violations of any kind, within a three-year period. One conviction of such drivers will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the bill add two new paragraphs to sections 509-c (1), 509-c(2), 509-cc(1) and 509-cc(2) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively: 1) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has failed a reexamination under new section 509-bb of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which is added by section 2 of this bill; and 2) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has been the subject of such a reexamination, if the driver is convicted of a serious driving violation, is convicted of three or more driving violations of any kind, or is involved in two or more vehicle accidents within an eighteen month period following such reexamination. The type of accidents which will be counted will be determined by regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Section 11 of the bill amends section 509-d(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must obtain the driving record of the applicant and investigate the applicant's employment record.

Section 12 of the bill amends section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that motor carriers annually shall require each bus driver to provide the carrier with a list of all traffic violations and all accidents in which the driver was involved during the prior twelve months.

Section 13 of the bill amends section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to notify a motor carrier of any convictions or accidents of a bus driver resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle. Motor carriers will be required to establish an escrow account with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which shall charge a fee to defray the costs of the notification.

Section 14 of the bill amends section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to increase the minimum civil penalty for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations from $250 to $500 per violation, and to increase the maximum penalty from $1000 to $2,500 per violation.

This bill takes affect on the first day of September next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that no reexamination or disqualification shall be required by the changes made by sections two through ten of the bill solely as a result of convictions or accidents which occurred prior to such effective date.

EXISTING LAW:

Under Section 383 Of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, seat belts are required on passenger vehicles manufactured after 1965 and on school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987, but are not required on other buses.

Under section 506 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require the reexamination of any driver who has been involved in three accidents within an eighteen-month period. If the driver fails the examination, the Commissioner may revoke or suspend the driver's license, or may impose restrictions on the use of the license.

Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law currently provides for a one-year disqualification of bus drivers who accumulate nine or more points within an eighteen-month period. There is no current requirement for disqualification based upon a driver's involvement in multiple accidents.

Section 509-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant, but does not require that the record actually be obtained. Section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to provide notification of new driving convictions of bus drivers to those motor carriers which request such information and pay the necessary fee. Section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires bus drivers to inform motor carriers of driving convictions, but not accidents.

Under section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require that a motor carrier pay a civil penalty between $250 and $1000 for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:

The tragic bus accident which occurred in Warren County on April 11, 1992 and resulted in the death of two young students from Long Island highlighted three deficiencies in our current law. First, present law does not permit the disqualification of bus drivers based upon prior accidents. Second, the current system of employer review of employees' prior accidents and driving convictions is insufficient. Finally, although seat belts are currently required on cars and school buses, they are not required on charter buses, even if those buses are carrying school children. This bill seeks to cure those deficiencies in the law, in order to reduce the chances of a similar accident in the future.

First, this bill provides that a bus driver who has a total of three serious driving convictions or accidents within a three-year period must undergo a new examination, including a road test. Driving convictions and accidents which occur while the driver is operating a personal vehicle are included in this total. If the driver fails to pass the road test, the driver will be disqualified from operating a bus for one year. If the driver passes the road test, no penalty is imposed, but a subsequent serious conviction or two subsequent accidents within an eighteen-month period will result in a one-year disqualification. In addition, any driver having three convictions within a three-year period will be disqualified for one year.

Second, this bill will reform the present conviction and accident information system. Under current law, a motor carrier is not permitted to hire a new driver unless they "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant from every state in which the applicant worked or held a license during the preceding three years. Simply making the inquiry is all that is necessary, however, and there is no requirement that the record actually be obtained. In addition, every year drivers must inform their employers of motor vehicle violations which have occurred during the prior twelve months, but they are not required to report accidents. Moreover, although DMV operates a system for informing motor carriers of new convictions of their drivers, the program is optional. This bill will correct these inadequacies by requiring that motor carriers actually obtain the driving records of applicants, by requiring that drivers inform their employers of accidents as well convictions each year, and by requiring that all motor carriers take part in DMV's driving conviction notification system.

Finally, State law presently requires that all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, but does not require seat belts on other buses. This bill requires that all buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, except for buses of motor carriers which do not conduct substantial business within this State.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Any increased costs incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a result of this bill will be accommodated within their present budget.