ID: 1985-01.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ken Rutland; NHTSA

TO: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Date: Jan. 15, 1985

Subject: INFORMATION: Clarification of Requirements of Final Rule on Harmonization (Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2)

From: Ken Rutland Safety Standards Engineer

To: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

THRU: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

VIA: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

I received a telephone call from Mr. Kazue Watanabe of the Stanley Electric Company, Tokyo, Japan on December 19, 1984, with a question concerning the November 26, 1984, Final Rule amendment to harmonize FMVSS No. 108 with European standards. With the amendment Published in Notice 2, Mr. Watanabe wanted to know if motorcycle turn signal lamps were supposed to meet the photometric requirements of Table I of SAE J588e or the requirements set forth by Figure 1a and Figure 1b given in Notice 2, after December 26, 1984.

I transmitted the attached message to Mr. Watanabe by telex, on December 27, 1984.

Attachment (w/6 copies)

Interpretations NOA-30 Std. 108 Interpretations Room 5109 Red Book (3)

To: Mr. Kazue Watanabe Stanley Electric Co. Telex # 246-6623 SEC TOKJ

For motorcycle turn signal lamps, FMVSS No. 108 as amended (FR 46386, November 26, 1984), allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet one-half of the minimum photometric values at each test point, as specified in SAE J588e, according to S4.1.1.30 and substituting the values in figure 1a and 1b for table 1 of SAE J588e. This requirement is now located in S4.1.1.11 for the 19 individual test points. The new S4.1.1.12 substitutes Figure 1C for the former Figure 1 and establishes the group totals for 5 zonal groups. It is intended that the individual test points with a value of one-half that of Figure 1b be used in determining the group totals for motorcycle turn signal camps. We hope this answers your question.

ID: 1985-01.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shaw

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Shaw Sales Manager Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. 1004 Andover Park East Seattle Washington 98188

Dear Mr. Shaw:

This in in reply to your letter of December 5, 1984, with respect to the permissibility under Federal regulations of a "Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light" which provides functions additional to a stop signal.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements only for center high-mounted stop lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, and for equipment that replaces original equipment center high mounted stop lamps.

If you offer this device to new car dealers for installation on new cars before their sale, the dealer bears the responsibility for insuring that the car he sells complies with the center high mounted stop lamp requirements for new motor vehicles. On vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1986, equipped with the center lamp, that lamp may flash with the hazard warning lamp, but it cannot be combined with other lighting functions such as turn signals.

However, the device you wish to offer appears intended as an aftermarket device and not intended as original equipment for passenger cars. If this assumption is correct, there is no Federal standard that applies to it, and its legality must be determined according to the law of each State where it will be in use.

We hope that this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Dept of Transportation Dec. 5, 1984 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir,

We're a manufacturer of Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light and we understand it must meet the requirement of Federal Standard if we want to marketing this product.

Now, our question is: If we design it with multi functions, will it be O.K br D.O.T? That means it is designed with not only the stop light function, but also is designed with the hazard flashing light function for emergency use and with the automatic warning flashing light function if this supplemental light catches the high-beam bright lighting from the rear vehicle which approaches closely behind you in a short, unsafe distance. The designed is patented and is definitely helpful for highway safety.

Please help us by confirming this letter as soon as possible or advising us otherwise. Thank you in advance for your great help. Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. William Shaw Sales Manager WS/ny Encl.

ID: 1985-01.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Director of Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/2/69 letter from Charles A. Baker to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company Inc.; 11/10/81 letter from F. Berndt to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TEXT:

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1984 asking our "concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin...may be mounted at the trailer frame level ( about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

You thoughtfully attached a copy of my letter to you of November 10, 1981 in which I advised you that "the determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer", and that "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top...is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any the side view mirror." That remains our view if the configuration of any trailer is such that location of clearance lamps at or near the top of the trailer results in the reflection of the light into the eyes of the driver of the truck tractor.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association ALEXANDRIA, VA. 22314 December 7, 1984 Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA, NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of the Height of Front Clearance Lamps on Trailers with Effective Low Front Ends

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We request your concurrence that the front clearance lamps on a trailer with a low front end or one designed to be equipped with a tarpaulin which would necessicate mounting the clearance lamps low may be mounted as the trailer frame level (about 50 inches above the ground), to avoid these lamps reflecting into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

In your letter of May 2, 1969 to Reliance Trailer and Truck Company, you stated that, "the front clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practicable to clear the bottom edge of the tarp." In your letter of November 10, 1981 to TTMA you stared that with regard to low front bulkheads on platform trailers that, "NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top or the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror."

With your concurrence, the sketch in our Recommended Practice No. 9, "Location of Lighting Devices for Trailers", will be revised as shown in the attachment.

Sincerely yours,

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering Attachments: Interpretations(Letters referenced above) - see 5/2/69 letter to Reliance Trailer and Truck Co., and 11/10/81 letter to Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association RP No. 9 with Drawing - Omitted.

cc: TTMA Engineering Committee

ID: 1985-01.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Leon Hart -- State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Leon Hart State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware The Townsend Building P.O. Box 1402 Dover, Delaware 19903

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.

There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.

Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards, "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from selling new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus in question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked "School Bus." In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a "Type II school vehicle," the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.

We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of your school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION THE TOWNSEND BUILDING DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

October 30, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As the State Supervisor of School Transportation for the State of Delaware, it is important that I provide accurate information regarding the use of vehicles by school districts for the tranportatinn of children for other than home to school and return transportation.

Specifically, a school district has contacted this office to determine if they are permitted to purchase and use a Dodge Maxi van, painted white, and with the capacity of 15 persons to transport small groups of children to or from various school-related activities. Other school districts are currently using this type of vehicle which may compound the problem.

Question: May a public or nonpublic school purchase and use a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more to transport school children or other persons to or from school-related activities if that vehicle does not meet the requirements of a school bus as established by the National School Bus Standards plus those required by the State of Delaware?

Your prompt reply to this question and information to support this position will be appreciated. I may be contacted by calling 302-736-4697.

Sincerely,

M. Lean Hart State Supervisor School Transportation

MLH:mk

cc: James C. Phillips, Superintendent Sussex County Vo-Tech District Robert J. Vashell , Director Division of Motor Vehicles

ID: 1985-01.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mandan Public School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 3, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of Greyhound-type buses to transport school children to school-related activities. You stated that the Mandan Public School District is considering purchasing 1963 and 1965 model year Greyhound-type buses for the purposes of transporting elementary and secondary students to activity events. Your first question asked whether this would be allowed under our regulations on school buses.

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mandan's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If Mandan had planned to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Since Mandan plans to buy 1963 and 1965 model year buses, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent Mandan from buying a bus that was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus safety standards for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if North Dakota has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on Mandan's purchase of 1963 and 1965 model year buses. HSPS 17 will affect Mandan only if North Dakota has adopted it and if North Dakota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If North Dakota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the Greyhound-type buses, but it has safety features that the Greyhound-type buses that you are considering lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that Mandan should consider before it decides to buy a Greyhound-type bus.

Your second question asked whether Mandan may charter Greyhound-type buses from a common carrier to transport students to school-related events.

Again, Mandan would not be precluded from chartering Greyhound-type buses if North Dakota has not adopted our view that the specifications of HSPS 17 apply to activity buses.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

Mandan Public School District

December 3, 1984

Frank A. Brendt Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Brendt:

During a telephone conversation with Mr. David Soul, it was suggested that I request clarification from you on the following questions:

(A) The Mandan Public School District is considering the purchase of a 1963 and a 1965 Greyhound-type bus to transport elementary and secondary students to activity events. Is this legal and will the district be in conformance with Federal regulations? If not, what are the possible legal ramifications?

(B) May the Mandan Public School District charter buses from a common carrier who uses the same vehicles (Greyhound-type), to transport elementary and secondary students to activity type functions? If not, why, and what are the legal ramifications if we do?

Thank you for your prompt response.

Gordon G. Berge Business Administrator Mandan Public School District

ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.

ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: 1985-01.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Verne L. Freeland

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Verne L. Freeland P.O. Box 693652 Miami, FL 33269

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of the Rulemaking division of this agency, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that you had developed a child restraint system which was built into the vehicle seat, and asked how to proceed to have this child restraint certified as complying with Standard No. 213. As currently written, Standard No. 213 does not accommodate your type of restraint.

A manufacturer of a child restraint system is required to certify that each child restraint system manufactured by it complies with all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, and adding a statement to that effect to the label required by section S5.5 of the Standard. This certification need not be based on actual test results; NHTSA only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what test results, engineering analysis, or other data would be sufficient to enable it to meet the due care requirement in certifying that its child restraints comply with the standard. Certainly, we would recommend that a manufacturer marketing a new child restraint design test that restraint in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard.

As you will see from the enclosed copy of Standard No. 213, Section S5.3.1 of the standard requires each child restraint system to be capable of being restrained by a type 1 seat belt system. In addition, the test procedures in section S6 specify that the child restraint is to be tested by attaching it to a standard vehicle seat solely by the vehicle seat's lap belts. Your design, which incorporates the restraint into a vehicle seat, could not be attached to a standard vehicle seat by means of lap belts.

Standard No. 213 would have to be amended in order for you to be able to certify that your child restraint satisfies all the requirements of that standard. 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) gives interested persons the right to petition this agency for amendments a safety standard, and sets forth the required contents of the petition, the address to which it should be sent, and the procedures which will be followed by the agency in evaluating the petition. If you wish, you may file such a petition. Should such a petition be granted, this agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard No. 213.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Verna L. Freeland PO Box 693652 Miami, Florida 33269 Tel(305)653-1882

July 4, 1984

Val Radovich, Safety Standards Engineer, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 5316 NRM 12, Washington, D.C., 20590

Re: Obtaining certification of "Built-In Childs Safety Seat" to U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213-80 - Child Seating Systems

Dear Mr. Radovich,

I am the inventor of a built-in childs safety seat as described and depicted in the attached copy of my pending application for U.S. Letters Patent as/also the attached illustrative pictures of miniature model of same.

In April, 1984, I submitted a copy of the patent application and pictures, together with a sales pitch, entitled 'comment' (copy attached) to each of the 19 directors of Chrysler corporation in hopes of having Chrysler manufacture and incorporate the depicted child's safety seat in their vehicles.

On May 8th 1984, as a result of the submission of such material to Chrysler, I received, signed and delivered to Chrysler a 'Suggestion Agreement' as a prerequisite which, I believed, would expedite the consideration and implementation of the invention by Chrysler. (copy attached).

On May 29, 1984, I was advised by Chrysler that the built-in childs safety seat must be certified by NHTSA to meet the requirements of U.S. Motor Vehicle Standard No. 213-80 - Child Seating Systems, before the seat could be evaluated by Chrysler. This May 29th letter from Chrysler further advised me to obtain information as to such certification by contacting NHTSA at 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., attention: Secretary Dole. (a copy of such letter is attached).

On June 4, 1984, I sent a letter to NHTSA at the address and to the attention of Secretary Dole, as advised by the letter from Chrysler. (copy of June 4th letter attached).

On July 3, 1984, having received no response to my letter of June 4th, I began telephoning to seek the requested information, commencing with first telephone call to Secretary Dole's offices, which referred me to another telephone number, which referred me to another telephone number, etc., etc., etc., which finally resulted in my being advised that you (or a member of your staff) would ultimately respond to my June 4th letter when the same had finally filtered down through the chain of command from Secretary Dole's office. (a procedure which was estimated as a 'month or two').

In view of the foregoing information, and seeking to expedite the matter, I telephoned your office and was advised to send a new letter directly to you. During such telephone conversation I attempted to describe my invention in order to secure some telephonic information as to the procedure, criteria, and time element involved in obtaining the desired certification and was advised that since my proposed seat is bolted to the regular auto seat (as a built-in integral part thereof) it did not have the required 'tether belting' necessary to meet the specifications of Standard 213-80 and hence, would probably require petition for variance or for an exemption from such requirement of the act.

Now then, Mr. Radovich, having given you all of the background information, with supporting documents, I ask for your assistance in obtaining the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible including but not limited to:

(a) Advising me as to the procedure or procedures necessary to effect certification of the depicted built-in childs safety seat.

(b) Advising me as to the necessity and, if so, the procedure for obtaining variance and/or exemption from the 'tether belt' requirement of 213-80.

(c) Advising me as to whether or not I must construct and furnish you with a full scale working model of the depicted built-in childs safety seat and, if so, where and when?

(e) Advising me as to the anticipated costs and expenses involved in obtaining certification, and

(f) Such other and further advice as you may be so kind as to suggest in order to obtain the requested certification as expeditiously as is possible.

In regard to the ultimate certification, I understand that the present certification requires that child seat safety equipment meet safety standards of a thirty (30) mile per hour impact test. It is my belief that the depicted built-in childs safety seat will meet much higher safety standards of 55 miles per hour impact, and higher. This, coupled with the elimination of injuries caused by improperly attached equipment, etc., (as suggested in the patent application and comments) may well give rise to further decreasing injuries to children in vehicles and, consequently, I am anxious to have the built-in childs safety seat tested to its maximum safety certification instead of the normal and minimal 30 miles per hour standards.

I apologize for the length of this letter but I sincerely believe that the depicted seat constitutes such a substantial improvement of the existing childs safety seats now on the market as to warrant consideration of getting it certified and on the market as soon as humanly possible.

Yours very truly,

Verne L. Freeland

xerox copy *to: R.E. Springer, Outside Suggestion Dept., Chrysler Corporation, CIMS 418-05-30, P. O. Box 1118 Detroit, Michigan, 48288

* without attachments

&: WIGMAN & COHEN, P.C., Suite 200, Crystal Square 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202 Serial No. 584, 402 Ref: 1589-A

ID: 1985-01.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. Henderson -- Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. B. Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, VA 22202

This responds to your letter of November 8, 1984, asking numerous questions concerning Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. The answer to your questions, numbered as presented in the attachment to your letter, are as follows:

1.) S.7.4.4 of Standard No. 208 sets requirements concerning access to the latchplate on the outboard side of a seat. The purpose of the requirement is to make safety belts more convenient to operate by requiring the latchplate to be accessible. You asked, in effect, whether the requirements of S7.4.4 also applies to an inboard mounted buckle located between the seat and a console. The answer is no. An inboard mounted buckle, however, must comply with the requirements of S7.4.6.

2.) You asked what is the meaning of the terms "comfort clip and window-shade" in section 7.4.2 of Standard No. 208. The terms refer to elements of a safety belt system which are used to relieve tension in the torso portion of a Type 2 lap-shoulder belt. A comfort clip is a device which attaches to the belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. The term window-shade refers to a type of device in a safety belt retractor which allows an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt once it has been adjusted around the occupant.

3.) You asked if it is considered, "Action", if the driver hangs the webbing of an automatic belt on a manual convenience hook. An automatic belt must provide protection by means that require no action by the vehicle occupants. Manual vehicle convenience hooks used with an automatic belt system must comply with S 7.4.1 of the Standard, which requires a convenience hook to automatically release under specified conditions.

4.) You asked if it is mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF 2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A bolts for automatic belt mounting hardware. The answer is no. Automatic belts meeting the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. The enclosed interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen more fully explains the application of Standard No. 209 to automatic belts.

5.) You asked if the retractor of a rear lap belt is a 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? You also asked if both points must be within the range specified in S 4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 210 defines an anchorage as "provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." If by a two point mounting you mean a retractor that has two means for transferring the belt loads to the vehicle structures, then both points are anchorages and must conform to Standard No. 210. The range specified in S4.3.1.1. is measured from the seating reference point to the point of contact of the webbing with its attachment hardware. It does not require the anchorage points to be within that range.

6.) Finally, you asked what is the definition of the term "most upright position" used in S 4.3.2.1 of Standard No. 210. In referring to the "most upright position" of the seat back, the agency means the seat back adjustment position which most closely approximates a vertical position.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 8, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please provide a written interpretation of the following question:

FMVSSS 210, Section 4.3.2. requires that the seat back be "in its most upright position". Please define the phrase "in its most upright position".

Also please provide answers for the questions on the attached page.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

B. Henderson

BH:js Attachments

QUESTIONS ON FMVSS 208, 209, 210.

1. FMVSS 208 S.7.4.4. states "the side of the vehicle interior to allow unhindered transit of the test block defined in Figure 4 of this standard to the latch plate or buckle......"

Does it mean that the whole buckle should be in the test block area as illustrated in Fig. A below?

What if the only push-button of the buckle fall in that test block area as illustrated in Fig. B below?

"INSERT"

Figure A Figure B

2. What is the meaning of comfort clip and window-shade? (in FMVSS 208 S.7.4.2)

3. Is it considered to be 'Action' if the driver hangs the webbing on the hook of the passive belt with manual convenience hook?

(New regulation FMVSS 208 5.4.1.2.1.1)

4. Is it mandatory to use 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-21 for the passive belt mounting hardware? (FMVSS 209 S.4.1(f)).

5. If the retractor or reel of the rear lap belt is 2 point mounting type, are both points considered to be anchorage points? Should both points be in the range defined in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.1.1?

6. What is the definition of 'most upright position' of seat back in the FMVSS 210 S.4.3.2.1?

ID: 1985-01.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting several interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.

In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement of S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.

The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.

On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application of Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.

In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will have four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.

Paragraph S.4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.

In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength test applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.

The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 to Mazada that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency to clarify the words "fold" and "tumble" used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that "fold" means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and "tumble" means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.

In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the word "receptacle" as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word "receptacle" refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

OCC 1578

Ref. No. 84-007 Date Nov. 26, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear sir,

Subject: Questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 201, 208 and 210

We, DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD., plan to export our vehicles to U.S.A. We have some questions to conform our vehicle to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We would like to ask you to answer the questions described in Attachment I, Attachment II and Attachment III.

Your earliest and kind response will be greatly appreciated.

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. DAIHATSU MOTOR CO., LTD.

Attachment I: Standard No. 201

The underlined part of the paragraph S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 as follows is not clear at which section the armrest shall be measured vertically.

S3.5.1(c) "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area."

We understand it shall be measured at the section b shown in Fig. 1. If our understanding is wrong, please explain or illustrate in detail.

Fig. 1

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment II: Standard Nos. 208 and 210

We are developing an occupant protection system shown in Fig. 2. It consists of an automatic belt and optionally Type 1 seat belt assembly to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

Fig. 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 1.

We understand that the paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208 means "An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3 that is required to meet the perpendicular frontal (Illegible Word) protection requrements of S5.1 neet not conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209." Then, shall the automatic belt conform only to S4.1.2.1 (including S5.1), S4.5.3.3(including S7.1) and S4.1.1 of Standard No. 208, and need not conform to any requirements of Standard No. 209?

Question 2.

Our vehicle with the automatic belt will have four anchorages for one front seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly), and have no anchorages for a three-point manual seat belt assembly. Paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires that seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboad designated seating position in passenger cars. We cannot understand what the seat belt anchorages for the Type 2 seat belt assembly mean. Are the anchorages of the vehicle regarded as the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt anchorages? To conform to Standard No. 210, shall the vehicle install any other anchorages?

Question 3.

We cannot find any requirements about the strength test of anchorages for an automatic belt. To conform to Standard No. 210, we will test the anchorages of the vehicle by the way shown in Fig. 3 according to the test procedures for the anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly described in Standard No. 210. If our test procedure is wrong, please explain it in detail.

Fig. 3

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment III

Question 1.

The difference of meanings between "fold" and "tumble" in the paragraph S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208 is not clear. We understand that the meaning of the word "fold" is to move the seat back forward shown in Fig. 4-a, and that the meaning of the word "tumble" is to move both the seat cushion and the seat back shown in Fig. 4-b. If our understanding is wrong, please explain the meanings.

Question 2.

We cannot understand the word "receptacle" in paragraph S7.4.6.2. So please explain what the phrase "the inboard receptacle end of a seat belt assembly" means.

(Graphics omitted)