ID: nht89-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: MARK F. HOLMES

TO: STEVE WOOD ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A., U.S. DEPT. OF TRANPORTATION (MOTOR VEHICLES)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34; USA 108 [A][2][A]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Prior to my phone conversation with one of your associates, Mr. Vincent, enclosed please review a literary introduction letter along with a colorful illustration for two multi-purpose lighting devices called the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarms.

I am presently interested in presenting both items to a manufacturer for an after market device for commercial usage.

Before I can proceed with this presentation, I need to know that these devices and their features would not be in violation of any standards or regulations that have been established by your department.

I feel as though that by knowing first hand that these devices would not be challenged by law and would not be denied a patent or marketing rights because of an infraction based on it's usage and raw materials.

The Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm, are two devices that are designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down in a given area.

A speedy response from your department would be valued and appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/20/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BUD SHUSTER -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/89 FROM DONALD S. CLARK -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER; LETTER DATED 8/8/89 FROM CONGRESSMAN BUD SHUSTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS -- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shuster:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Lester Hoover. Mr. Hoover requested information about laws that cover the branding of tires that are not first quality. In addition, he asked whether there is any way to apply such a law to o ther consumer goods such as batteries. This inquiry has already been referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which sent you a letter dated October 16, 1989 explaining its tire labeling regulations. The FTC's letter also indicated that this agen cy's tire labeling regulations might be of interest to Mr. Hoover.

Let me begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated regulations related to tires. In particular, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, applies to new tires for use on passenger cars, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, applies to new tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, applies to retreaded tires for use on passenger cars, an d Part 569, Regrooved Tires, applies to all regrooved tires. Each of these regulations includes some labeling requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that every manufacturer certify that each of the tires it produces complies with these standards, including the labeling requirements. Thus, even a tire identified as something like "blemished" or "out-of-round" must be certified as complying with all provisions of the applicable safety standard(s). None of the regulations administered by this agency require, or establish any standards for, the identification of tires as something other than " first quality."

If some Federal regulation exists that requires the identification of tires as something other than "first quality," it would be promulgated by the FTC under that agency's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices. If the FTC does not h ave any such regulation, I am not aware of any other Federal agency that would have authority in this area. Similarly, I am not aware of any such labeling regulations that could be applied to consumer goods such as batteries.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989

FROM: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1990 TO MICHAEL S. KMIECIK FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

I would like to purchase several of these convertible kits and produce a few cars for resale. I need to know the safety standards that apply to convertibles 1978 and older. I would also request an interpretation as to whether this conversion kit meets these standards. The main safety features of this kit seem to be:

1. reinforce windshield pillar with steel.

2. 1 in. steel tubing welded to shock towers.

3. 2 x 3 x 1-1/2 in. channel iron over the original unibody frame rails.

ID: nht89-3.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1989

FROM: Patrick S. Baran -- Inventors, Dreamers, Explorers & Artists Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation.,NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-90 To Patrick S. Baran and From Stephen P Wood; (A35; STD 108 & 218); Also attached to letter 8-2-82 To William R. Harris, Jr. and From Frank Berndt; Attachment SAEJ586c not included.

TEXT:

We have a brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet. I am writing to you for informations on the D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness.

If there is anything else you can think of that we need to know for D.O.T. approval of this helmet brake light please let us know. I can be reached at(312)883-9200 or mail the information to I.D.E.A. Inc.; 2340 West Belmont; Chicago, IL 60618. Thank you for your time.

ID: nht89-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/89

FROM: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90, DN A35 STD 215, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL S. KMIECIK; Alpha I GTO, Ferrari on Rice (article omitted)

TEXT: I would like to purchase several of these kits and produce a few cars for resale. I need an interpretation of Safety Standard 581. If Datsun is produced before Sept. 1, 1976 are used does this kit meet the requirements of Safety Standard 215. Also cou ld you please send me a copy of Safety Standard 215 and Safety Standard 108.

ID: nht89-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/89

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN, -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/29/88 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; RE FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Twelve months ago, the attached letter was sent to your office requesting guidance. On March 31, 1989, we received a telephone call from Joan Tillgham of NHTSA wanting to know if we still needed the information; the answer was affirmative.

We have subsequently dropped our plans to widen the emergency door on our buses due to the lack of response from NHTSA and reverted to the design originally developed in 1977. (The new bus has recently been tested for and passed all requirements of F MVSS 217).

However, we now plan to sell the pilot bus with the door referenced in our November 29, 1988 letter. Could you please give us a response? As a last resort, we will simply remove the passenger seat at the wider door and install a restraining barrier.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht89-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/27/89

FROM: SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/12/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear N.H.T.S.A.:

I request a written, legal interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with regard to test procedures involving multi-passenger, passenger seats for school buses under 10,000 GVWR.

The situation is as follows:

1. The seat belts are mounted to the frame itself via a 1 1/4" angle bar running the width of the seat. (See photographs)

2. Each seating position has an individual set of seat belt mounting holes punched into the angle iron bar. (See photographs)

My question is does each seating position, when tested per @ 5.1 of FMVSS 210, have to be pulled simultaneously or should they be pulled individually?

I will be looking forward to your letter. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

(Photo Omitted)

Two passenger school bus passenger seat frame with seat belts attached. Front View.

(Photo Omitted)

Back view of a two passenger school bus seat with frame attached seat belts.

(Photo Omitted)

Top view of a 2 passenger school bus seat with seat belt bar mounted on seat frame for frame mounted seat belts. Note two separate sets of holes.

(Photo Omitted) Front view of a two passenger school bus seat with seat belts attached to seat frame.

(Photo Omitted)

Top forward view of a two passenger school bus seat frame which illustrates the seat belt attachment bar as frame mounted.

ID: nht89-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- CEO, BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, RE BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER; OCC 3876; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INTRODUC ED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alkire:

This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1989, in care of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for our comments on your "Brake Light Enhancer". This device flashes the stop lamps of a vehicle three times within the first two seconds after actuat ion of the stop lamp system, the lamps remaining illuminated thereafter.

Our comments on your device are restricted to its acceptability under the Federal regulatory scheme as either original or aftermarket equipment.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to lighting equipment on new vehicles is Standard No. 108. This standard must be met when the vehicle is manufactured, and when it is sold to its first purchaser (i.e., dealer-installed equipment must not affect compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards). Section S5.510(e) of Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be wired to be steady burning in use, and your device's initial cycle of three flashes in two seconds would create a noncomplia nce with this requirement. Accordingly, your device is not permissible as an item of original equipment.

There is no aftermarket Federal standard applicable to your device. Equipment intended for vehicles in use are subject to the restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that they may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equ ipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if they are installed by a person other than the vehicle owner. In our view, if a modification creates a noncompliance with a standard that applies to a new motor vehicle, it is the equivalent of creating a partial inoperability of original safety equipment when that modification is performed on a motor vehicle in use. Installation of the Brake Light Enhancer by a person other than the vehicle owner would have this effect, and thus would be subject to the prohibition of the Act.

Use of the device is also subject to the laws of the various States in which the device will be sold and operated. Although California may permit its use, per Calif. Senate Bill 1317 that you enclosed, other States may not. We are unable to advise on State laws, and recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1989

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Corporate Attorney, Cosco

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Councel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Cosco Dream Ride-Convertible Infant Restraint/Car Bed

ATTACHMT: Attached to Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to J.P. Reynolds (A36; Std. 213)

TEXT:

On October 6, 1989, we sent a prototype of the Dream Ride-Convertible infant restraint/car bed to George Chiang with Cosco's proposed labels and instruction sheet. We requested that NHTSA review the product and the written material regarding compliance with FMVSS 213 and advise us of any suggestions or recommendations.

In a later conversation with Richard Jasinski, it was suggested that Cosco should submit its analysis of the FMVSS 213 and how it applies to this product when used in the car bed position. Following are our comments in this regard. These comments do no t include any mention of the product as used in the rear-facing infant position, as such use requires no clarification in terms of compliance with the standard.

S4. Definitions. The following three definitions appear to be the most relevant concerning the car bed.

"Car bed" means a child restraint system, designed to restrain or position a child in the supine, or prone position, on a continuous flat surface.

The Dream Ride meets this definition, as shown in the enclosed copies of the labels and instruction sheet. Based upon our analysis, testing and input from our outside consultants, we have determined that the most favorable position for the car bed is th e right rear seat. The car bed is designed so that it can only be installed in that seating location with the child's head toward the center of the vehicle.

"Contactable surface" means any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is te sted in accordance with S6.1.

When tested in accordance with S6.1, the "contactable surface" of the Dream Ride is that side of the restraint to the infants left when the infant is properly positioned face-up in the unit.

"Torso" means the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

This definition refers to traditional forward-facing or rear-facing restraints. Cosco and its outside consultants have concluded that the "torso" of the test dummy applicable to the traditional rear-facing restraint is also applicable to the Dream Ride c ar bed, and the harness

system of the Dream Ride and the dynamic test criteria for the Dream Ride in the car bed position rely on this definition of "torso" which is generally from the crotch to the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.

S5.1.1 Child-restraint system integrity. The Dream Ride complies with sub-part (a) and (b) as the Dream Ride exhibits no separation and remains in the initial adjustment position when tested in accordance with S6.1.

S5.1.2. Injury criteria, is not applicable, as the Dream Ride is recommended for use by children weighing 17 pounds or less.

S5.1.3.3 Occupant excursion-car beds. "In the case of car beds, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso shall be retained within the confines of the car bed."

Cosco interpreted the phrase "confines of the car bed" to mean the horizontal plane formed by the top edge of the entire shell of the Dream Ride, when installed in conformance with Cosco's instructions. When tested in accordance with S6.1, all portions of the test dummy's head and torso are retained within this horizontal plane.

S5.2.3.2 Head impact protection. All surfaces which are contactable by the test dummy in any direction are covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the required characteristics.

S5.2.4 Protrusion limitation. The Dream Ride complies with the protrusion limitations of this section.

S5.3 Installation.

S5.3.1 The Dream Ride car bed complies with the attachment limitations. The vehicle belt is intended to be threaded through two car bed belt loops when installed in accordance with Cosco's labels and instructions.

S5.3.3 Car beds. "Each car bed shall be designed to be installed on a vehicle seat so that the car beds longitudinal axis is perpendicular to a vertical longitudinal plane through the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

The Dream Ride car bed complies with this requirement, as shown on the enclosed labels and instruction sheet.

S5.4 Belts, belt buckle, and belt webbing. The Dream Ride complies with each of the requirements of this section.

S5.5 Labeling. The enclosed labels for the Dream Ride reflect an exhaustive effort on the part of Cosco to not only meet the specific requirements of this section, but to also impart to the consumer the information necessary to properly use this child-r estraint as a car bed and a conventional, rear-facing infant restraint.

The large label contains the information required in S5.5.2 (a) through (f). The warning language of S5.5.2 (g) is found on both labels.

The required language of of S5.5.2 (h) is identified as statement # 2 on

the large label.

The language required by S5.5.2 (k), concerning use in the rear-facing position, required certain modification. In order not to confuse the consumer, Cosco determined that it was necessary to expand on the required language of this section, as shown on the section denoted as number 3 on the large label, which states as follows:

Place this infant restraint in a rear-facing position when using it in the vehicle as a car seat. This infant restraint must face sideways when used as a car bed; see label inside shell.

Throughout the instruction sheet and labels, Cosco has elected to refer to the two positions that this restraint may be used in as the car seat position (traditional rear-facing position) and the car bed position. Cosco believes that this provides the cl earest guidelines to the consumer concerning the proper use of the restraint in each position.

S5.5.2 (1) requires installation diagrams showing the child restraint in the right-front and center-rear seating positions. For the traditional rear-facing restraint, Cosco has provided these diagrams on the large label. Cosco's research and testing of the child-restraint in the car bed position resulted in the determination that the center-rear seating positions is not recommended for the car bed position and may be potentially unsafe. In testing the performance of the car bed in a simu- lated side- impact on the drivers side of a vehicle, it was determined that a car bed, when properly installed in the center seating position may move in the direction of the impact to the extent that the "head" of the car bed (that area of the car bed where the chi ld's head would be positioned) may strike the interior of the left-rear door or body panel of many newer vehicles with small rear seats. While Cosco has engineered the Dream Ride to provide the best possible protection for the child from this type of im pact by the use of energy absorbing foam and by introducing a flexible grid at the head of the shell, intrusion from a severe side-impact could result in serious head and neck injuries to infants if the car bed was installed in the center seating positio n. Cosco has thus warned through-out its labeling and instructions that the car bed should only be installed in the right-rear seat, or the right-front seat. Cosco and its consultants believe that this provides the best possible protection for the crit ical head and neck area of an infant.

The large label contains the required language of S5.5.2 (m).

S5.6 Printed instructions for proper use. Cosco complies with each of the applicable sub parts of this section, specifically S5.6.1.4, which requires that instructions for each car bed shall explain that the car bed should be positioned in such a way th at the child's head is near the center of the vehicle. The above explanation concerning the installation diagrams is applicable to Cosco's instructions that the car bed be installed only in the right-rear and right-front seating positions.

The specific language concerning the installation of the car bed so that the baby's head is toward the center of the vehicle is found on page 5 of the instruction sheets under the warning section at the top, paragraph number two.

Cosco has sled-tested the Dream Ride in the car bed position not only as required in S6.1, but also to simulate side-impacts and various misuse configurations. The reports and films of these tests are available for your review upon request.

Cosco looks forward to your comments regarding the Dream Ride.

(Attached are copies of Cosco restraint system labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted).)

ID: nht89-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETT ER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a ru lemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that a fforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is estab lished in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individua l medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no l onger comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regu late modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and

2 many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the v ehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. Th is is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medic al conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tin ting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interest s.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently review ing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES