ID: nht80-2.48

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John P. Murtha, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Steve Zufall. Mr. Zufall is interested in the specifications applicable to the manufacture of propane tanks to be used in the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles. He asked how to obtain "numbers" to be listed on the tanks and mentioned the designation "4VA-240", which someone had discussed with him.

The enclosed discussion sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. The applicable statutory authority is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.

There are no requirements under the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that specify "numbers" which must be stamped on propane gas tanks. The designation mentioned by Mr. Zufall, "4VA-240", is actually "4BA-240" and refers to specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. These regulations would not apply, however, to tanks or fuel systems on private vehicles. For further information regarding these regulations, Mr. Zufall should contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

The Federal Implications of Installing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks and Of Converting Fuel Systems to Use Alternate Fuels

Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles with are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.

The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees I. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (A)(1) of the Act, new Motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.P. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).

Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).

With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 361-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (N.P. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be covered by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.

The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.

Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacements equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.

Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.

Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.

I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.49

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mechanical Plastics Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.

From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to want information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.

The following are the responses to your specific questions.

1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes our product fall, if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?

As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicle means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.

2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall, if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question number 1.

3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall, if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?

If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacturer simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.

4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?

There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable to modifications made to vehicle by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.

5. In each of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?

No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or product complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification lable must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.

6. In each of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if improper installation?

If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safety standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.

7. Pased on the general information supplied with this letter would the installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an "alterers" label or certification?

As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if the installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.

8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?

The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash test if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.

9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanical Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?

The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification of assurances from manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self-certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.

10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from the installing party as described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question number 9.

We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties with respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you to the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht80-2.5

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartman, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 17, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartman, Braun & Halper Suite 1015 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc., concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

You asked whether a "foam tray" marketed as an accessory for a child restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray "may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners" and is made of polyurethane foam and "does not contain any metal or solid parts." The purpose of the device is "to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides."

Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.

You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained that Strolee is considering the use of "an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child." The impact shield "would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode." When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.

The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed or movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.

You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by the agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee")

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was a pleasure for Mr. Hyde and me to meet with you and your associates concerning the above referenced car seat regulations. As you know, our firm represents Strolee and we are writing this letter to you on their behalf.

We are sending you under separate cover a letter setting forth in detail our objections to what we perceive to be the ambiguities in the standard and our comments in relation thereto. The purpose of this letter is to seek your opinion under the existing standard concerning two areas of concern to our client. They are as follows:

1) Section 5.2.2.2 provides that each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or moveable surface directly forward of the dummy. Our client markets an accessory for use with its car seat which, for purposes of convenience, we would label as a "foam tray". This tray is made of polyurethane foam. It is not a part of the car seat and is sold totally separate and independent from the car seat. It may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners. It does not contain any metal or solid parts. It can be used by the parent for other purposes, but it is marketed primarily as an accessory for the car seat. The purpose of the foam tray is to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides. We believe it will keep the child occupied and thus promote the use of the seat by keeping the child happy and engaged in his own activities. It should prevent boredom on long trips in a car seat.

The foam tray is patented and our client is the licensee of the patent owner. We desire to have your interpretation as to whether our client can continue to market this tray. In the opinion of our client, it does not present a safety hazard and does not present any barrier as to whether or not a parent affixes the harness straps that are a part of the car seat.

2) Section 6.1.2 provides for the dynamic test procedure. Section 6.1.2.1.2 provides what is called "Test Configuration II", which is the test required at twenty miles per hour without the tether strap affixed and without the restraining straps of the system affixed to the dummy. One of the systems under consideration by our client would be the use of an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child. It is contemplated that the impact shield would be removeable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode. If such is the case, then the five point harness, that is an integral part of the Strolee car seat, would be used as the restraining system. The car seat would be affixed to the car in the usual manner. Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested as to whether the Strolee car seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II. In this connection, your attention is respectively directed to the difference between the Strolee restraint system and the system employed by the Bobby-Mac car seat. With the Bobby-Mac car seat, when the removeable shield is taken off of the car seat, the sole restraining device that affixes the car seat to the automobile does not function properly. Such a condition does not exist in the Strolee seat. The attachment of the automobile seat belt to the car seat is totally independent of the system designed to hold the child in the car seat.

The foregoing request for your interpretation is not to be deemed our acquiesence in the legal propriety of the regulations. While our client does not contest your right to regulate the juvenile car seat, it has strong objections to the regulations themselves and, as appears from my other letter, the apparent discriminatory manner in which these regulations may be enforced.

May we please hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

One final point, in our meeting, you indicated that you will be issuing a number of interpretive opinions in response to manufacturers' inquiries of your department. We would appreciate receiving written copies of all interpretive opinions that are published by your department.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: nht80-2.50

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yarbrough manufacturing Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

YARBROUGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.

March 24, 1980

Nelson Erickson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT

RE: FMVSS No. 115. VIN for trailers to tow Boats, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Utility and similar items.

Dear Sir:

Last week, we discussed by phone the information needed to properly complete section 2 of the new vehicle identification number. I have put together the data on our trailers with a sample serial number. Will you please review this information and let me know if it complies with all the provisions of No. 115 concerning our type of trailers.

Enclosures:

1. Sample serial number

2. Part number information to be used for section 2 of VIN.

3. Information on model designations with examples and explanations.

4. Coded locations of assembly points where serial numbers are assigned and affixed to trailers. For use in 2nd Character of section 3.

5. Sales literature with specifications

Our engineering department would keep your files updated with information on new models added to our line.

Since we begin assigning new serial numbers in July of each year, I would appreciate receiving your written comments as soon as possible. If you would prefer to discuss any of this by phone, please call me at 1-800-433-8863.

Sincerely,

Milton M. Singleton, Vice President

[Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht80-2.6

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Florida, Earl H. Wright

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Earl H. Wright Administrator Department of Education State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline fuel systems to liquefied fuel systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter that we issued last year which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. That letter should answer all of your questions. Please note that an individual or an entity such as a State agency or school board can make modifications to his or its own vehicles with impunity as far as Federal requirements are concerned, if that individual or entity performs the work. For example, district school board employees could make the conversion you desire without regard to Federal requirements, whereas a motor vehicle repair business or the L.P. gas dealer would be responsible for complying with all Federal requirements.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[letter dated 8/17/79 from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 21, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At least two county district school boards in Florida have converted school buses from a gasoline fuel system to a liquefied petroleum (L.P.) gas fuel system. Other district school boards are considering making such conversions to school buses.

The conversions include removing, from the school bus chassis, a fuel system certified to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the chassis manufacturer as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, and installing in its place an L.P. gas system that has not met certification requirements for F.M.V.S.S. 301. In some cases the conversions were done to new buses immediately after they were delivered to the school district by the manufacturer. In other cases the conversions were done to one- or two-year old used school buses. Some conversions were made by L.P. gas dealers and some were made by district school board employees.

In that some school buses have been converted to L.P. gas and there is an indicating that such a conversion program involving hundreds of school buses in Florida may be begun soon, I am requesting answers as follows:

(1) If a state agency, or person, knowingly renders inoperative a fuel system installed on a school bus in compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 301 by removing the fuel system from the bus and replacing it with a fuel system that does not meet the requirements of F.M.V.S.S. 301, has the state agency, or person, committed a violation of a federal law or of a rule or safety standard authorized by law?

(2) If a state agency, or person, is found to be responsible for noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard because of actions described in item (1) above, is there a penalty for being responsible for such noncompliance?

Your consideration and response to the above request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Earl H. Wright Administrator School Transportation

ID: nht80-2.7

DATE: 04/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

April 18, 1980

SUBJECT: Interpretation of Part 581 Damage Criteria

FROM: Chief Counsel

To: Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

You have requested an interpretation of the term "original contour" as it appears in the Part 581 bumper standard, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8), and 581.5(c)(11)(i) and (ii). The standard limits the amount of deviation from original contour permitted for the vehicle exterior surfaces and bumper face bar 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact. You ask whether original contour refers to the configuration of the exterior surface or face bar prior to the commencement of any testing, or prior to a particular test impact or test mode.

In establishing the Part 581 standard, NHTSA concluded that the typical vehicle will be involved in more than one lowspeed bumper impact over its expected life. In order to assure a performance level which meets the demands of normal driving conditions, the agency determined that bumpers should be capable of providing an acceptable level of damage resistance in a series of impacts. In keeping with this purpose, "original contour", as used in the Part 581 protective criteria, should be established prior to the initiation of any testing, and the tested surface or face bar should not deviate from this contour beyond the prescribed limits throughout the pendulum and barrier test sequences. The other interpretations would not serve the stated purpose, since they are based on a changing reference condition and would permit damage to accumulate from test to test.

Frank Berndt

ID: nht80-2.9

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Home Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact" shall meet the performance requirements of the standard "when tested as a composite with the other materials." Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

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

Steven L. Oesh Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 27, 1980

Dear Mr. Oesh:

As you know, the Standard No. 213 requires labeling and installation diagrams. Normally, these labels are paper with a self-adhesive backing.

Some states require upholstery tags that are also normally paper, and almost always are torn off by the customer.

Our plastic shell to which the labels will be attached and the pad assemblies themselves will conform to the Flammability requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

As the two small labels and the upholstery tag are insignificant compared to the assemblies to which they are attached, and the method of testing is with a 4" x 14" specimen which is large compared to the labels, would paper labels as applied in our application be allowed? I would appreciate your immediate attention to this question.

Don Gerken Product Engineer

ID: nht80-3.1

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1979, letter to Docket No. 79-03; Notice 2 on Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Systems. That letter was in part a comment to the docket and in part a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The points raised in your comment to the docket will be considered in our final rule on the issues proposed in Notice 2. This letter responds to your interpretive question whether your trailer emergency valve is permitted in accordance with the requirements of section 5.2.1.1 of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Section 5.2.1.1 of the standard requires that vehicles be equipped with a reservoir that is capable of releasing the parking brakes when the air in the service brake system fails. The valve that you suggest would not provide such a reservoir but would merely reroute air from the trailer air supply system which would be used to release the parking brakes. The agency does not believe that this complies with the requirement that a reservoir be provided.

Recently, the Berg Manufacturing Company has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a manner that would permit the type of system that you suggest. The agency is now evaluating that petition and will issue a notice in the near future addressing this issue. We suggest that you closely follow this rulemaking action.

ID: nht80-3.10

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, asking two questions about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an "informational readout display." You explained that the display "consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever."

The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines "informational readout display" as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic "readout" panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays "capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols." The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display.

The display you have described is a guage. Section 4 of the standard defines "guage" as "a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of "telltale." Section 4 of the standard defines "telltale" as "a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function." In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function, Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities.

Your second question concerns "a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level." You explained that the "colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated." [Emphasis in the original] You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is "a hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . floor console" or because it is a "telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a "hand-operated vehicle control."

Further, the display that you have described is not a "telltale." As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display "Only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on." Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard.

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

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

April 22, 1980

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the applicability of certain provisions of FMVSS 101-80 to items of equipment which are intended to be used in 1981 model year Honda automobiles equipped with automatic transmission.

1. Incorporated in the tachometer instrument face is a display to show which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever. This display consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D' '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever. There are two light intensities for these bulbs; high enough for daylight visibility and reduced when the headlights are switched on. The display is activated whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position. The display is identified only in the owners manual, not adjacent to the display.

We classify this as an "informational readout display" using an" "other electro illuminating device" and, as such, complying with the requirements of FMVSS 101-80.

2. There is a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift lever sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D' are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control lever. The colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated.

We believe that, either this display is exempted from the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 under section S5.3.1 as a "hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . . floor console", or that the display and colored panel constitute a "telltale". As such, they comply with the requirement of S5.3.3 in that the light intensity of the telltale is not variable and the telltale and display are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We would appreciate your earliest attention and response in this matter. Please call me at (213) 327-8280 if you have any questions.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

ID: nht80-3.11

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vetter Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1980, with respect to your proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development. Your letter does not state so, but you indicated in your telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office that the sidecar is detachable.

It has been the position of this agency that a detachable sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. Conformance of the motorcycle therefore is judged without the sidecar attached. Therefore, the front turn signal configuration in Figure F2 would appear to meet Standard No. 108 but the asymmetrical one in Figures F1 and F3 would not. Similarly, the rear turn signal and stop lamp configurations in Figure R2 appear to comply, but those of Figures R1 and R3 do not. The configuration of Figure R4 is not prohibited by S4.1.2 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. As for Figure R5, the reflective material required by the standard must be on the motorcycle itself and its appearance solely on the sidecar, as indicated on your drawing, is improper. Finally, your Figure S1 depicts front and rear reflex reflectors mounted on the right side of the sidecar. This is not acceptable as a substitute for the required front and rear reflectors on the right side of the motor as you indicate but we believe it would enhance safety if you incorporated this idea into production.

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

SINCERELY,

Vetter Corporation

May 28, 1980

Frank Berndt NHTSA Dept. of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Per a phone conversation with Taylor Vincent on May 19, 1980, we are enclosing our proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development.

The drawings are numbered in our order of preference. Listed below are explanations of each lighting arrangement. We would like specific information as to which proposals are acceptable. Please note that a complete view of the lighting proposal consists of front, back, and side views (F1, R1, S1).

FRONT VIEWS

Figure F1 (First Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Amber turnsignal/running light on sidecar. (NOTE: The motorcycle may or may not have a running light function in its turnsignal assembly. If not, the sidecar would not have a running light.)

Also, note the difference in the horizontal position of the turnsignals. (The left turnsignal is located on the left side of the fairing - see side view on F1).

The motorcycle's right turnsignal would remain attached but would be electrically disconnected.

Figure F2 (2nd Choice):

Standard right and left turnsignal/running lights on the motorcycle. No front lights on sidecar.

Figure F3 (3rd Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light mounted on sidecar as shown.

Right turnsignal on motorcycle remains attached but is electrically disconnected.

Note the differences in horizontal and vertical placement of the right and left turnsignals.

REAR VIEWS

Figure R1 (1st Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light on sidecar. The right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attached but will be electrically disconnected. Does the sidecar need a running light where shown? Can it be red or amber? Note that the motorcycle's running light is red.

Figure R2 (2nd Choice):

Standard lighting on motorcycle as shown. No lighting on sidecar.

Figure R3 (3rd Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal on sidecar. Stop/running light on motorcycle and sidecar.

Which color running light would have to be used on the sidecar in this case? We feel it should be red to match the red running light on the motorcycle.

Again, the right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attach but will be electrically disconnected.

Figure R4 (4th Choice): Standard right/left turnsignals and stop/running light on motorcycle. Red stop/running light on sidecar.

Figure R5 (Option):

3 1/2" x 16" reflective material on back of sidecar. Is this legal with any or all of the preceeding lighting arrangements?

SIDE VIEW

Figure S1 (1st Choice):

Reflex reflector at front and rear of sidecar as shown. Note differences in height. Standard approved reflectors will remain on left side of motorcycle.

Both reflectors on sidecar meet all requirements of SAE J594e of Federal Standard 108.

SUMMARY

We urge you to seriously consider our first proposal, which we feel is the simplest, safest approach. Your speed and cooperation on returning documented answers to these questions is extremely important in order for us to remain current on our development schedule. Per Taylor Vincent, we hope to have a reply within three weeks.

If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call me at (805) 541-2900.

Rick Golde, Project Engineer

cc: DUANE ANDERSON; STEVE BERN