ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.

ID: nht90-3.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Rembert Ryals -- Attorney at Law

TO: Steven Krapzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Schmidt - Volkswagen

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Ryals (A36; Std. 208; Std. 209)

TEXT:

I assume you probably thought you had heard the last from me. However, before I can satisfy myself and my clients that the 1980 Volkswagen which my clients' son was driving when he was killed was in compliance with the CFRs, I need the answer to two or three additional questions.

My client has obtained a copy of the CFRs which were in effect when the Volkswagen was manufactured. These are noted as having been revised October 1, 1979. My client, whose husband is an engineer, has compared the regulations with those that succeeded them and finds no material difference. However, I wanted you to know the date of the standards to which I am referring because I am going to note certain page numbers and, in fact, will enclose a copy of two or three pages and wanted to be certain you knew that these where the 1979 regulations. In short, the page numbers may not correspond with the regulations which are now current but as stated, they do not materially differ.

First, enclosed is a copy of page 307. An examination of S4.1.2.1 states that the automobile must meet the lateral crash protection requirements of S5.2 and the roll-over crash protection requirements of S5.3. You have previously told me that the regul ations are performance standards and you talked to me about vehicles being subjected to head-on collision tests at certain speeds. Page 310 of the regulations, and particularly S5.3, states that a vehicle must pass the "roll-over" requirements. My clie nts' son's vehicle was killed when his vehicle rolled and we have an expert who is recognized throughout the Northwest who has stated that if the boy had had a fastened lap seat belt, his injuries would have not been severe. However, our Volkswagen did n ot have any lap seat belt in it when it was manufactured. I wanted you to let me know whether the Volkswagen did pass the "roll-over" test.

I also enclose a copy of page 319 which relates to Standard 571.209. That standard seems to unequivocally state that there must be a pelvic restraint in the vehicle, whether or not there is an upper torso restraint and that this pelvic restraint must be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of the vehicle. As stated, had there been a seat belt in this vehicle, the boy would not have been severely injured and certainly would not have been killed. That is at least the opinion of our expert.

Please give me your understanding as to whether the Volkswagen was subjected to the roll-over test and did satisfactorily pass it and,

secondly, please comment on the apparent inconsistency between 571.209 and the provisions of 208.

I will look forward to hearing from you and wish to thank you in advance for your assistance.

Attached is a copy of Federal Register, sections 571.208 and 571.209, Chap. V, pages 307, 309, 310 and 319 (text omitted).

ID: nht90-3.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. -- Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Management, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Mental Retardation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from George C. Shifflett to Oscar W. Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 1-4-91 from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted.)

TEXT:

During the past year I have had various contacts with Mr. George C. Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, Office of Vehicle Safety about our concerns for the safety of our residents and staff accompanying them in the vehicles. The vendor who sold the vehicles to the state has converted the vehicles to accommodate the needs of the residents. When contacted last year the vendor stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with state and federal regulations.

While Mr. Shifflett and I have communicated about this at different times and I have received copies of two letters sent to persons addressing similar concerns, I have not received any regulations or rules answering our concerns as outlined and presented to Mr. Shifflett. Therefore, since we are committed to insuring the safety and welfare of our residents and staff, your interpretation of the aforementioned process and its applicability to us will be greatly appreciated.

I would like to take this opportunity in advance to thank you for your attention to this important matter.

ID: nht90-3.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Dean A. Palius--Program Manager, VIA Systems

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to D.A. Palius (A36; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is written pursuant to our conversation this date regarding requirements for tow road length in the performance of occupant crash protection tests conducted in accordance with FMVSS No. 208.

As I stated to you on the phone, Via Systems is a manufacturer of automotive safety testing equipment. Via has supplied such products to the U.S. automotive industry for the past twenty (20) years. In reviewing a recent Via proposal for a crash test fa cility, a potential customer raised the issue of whether or not there was a specific legal requirement for a tow road to be 500 feet in length per the OVSC Laboratory test procedures, section 12.5. We indicated to the customer that FMVSS No. 208 only sp ecified the speed at which the test had to be performed. The length of the tow road was strictly a determination to be made by the manufacturer. We further stated that the OVSC procedures were utilized by that lab and others conducting tests specifical ly on behalf of the government. The procedures were not designed for manufacturer certifications and were developed for equipment specific to OVSC. After providing the above discussed information and a copy of FMVSS No. 208 to the client, the client co ntinues to show some discomfort regarding the legal mandate.

Pursuant to our conversation today, you have indicated that your office would issue a written opinion indicating that there is no legal requirement regarding tow road length. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1990

FROM: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re NCC--01

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from PJ. Rice to W.T. Mullen (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are having serious problems with the 13, 1990 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars, that we purchased in January 1990.

First: Our officers are experiencing difficulties with the shoulder harnesses, which is very serious. The shoulder harnesses causes a blind spot on the drivers left side, where the strap is connected to the door. There is a definite deficiency with vis ual surveillance.

Second: The shoulder harnesses also prevents left arm movements of our taller officers.

We now have 10, 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars and have not experienced any problems with the shoulder harnesses.

Would it be permissable to install 1989 style shoulder harnesses and lap belts in our 1990 models. If this is acceptable, please notify us in writing as soon as possible, so we may correct these problems.

Thank you for your time and concern.

ID: nht90-3.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Erhardt (A36; VSA Sec. 10(a)(2))

TEXT:

As you may know, we at Philips are working on the development of high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems for use as motor vehicle headlamps. These systems promise dramatic improvements in forward illumination while using less energy in a lower p rofile (allowing more aerodynamic vehicle design).

We are now at the point in our development where we have engineering samples available that we wish to test on road vehicles and would like to be advised of the laws concerning such an undertaking. It is our intention to equip 110 private and/or company vehicles for everyday use. The test would continue indefinitely (for lifetime/reliability evaluation) and could begin as early as August 27, 1990.

If a waiver or official authorization for this type of test is necessary, please consider this a request for same.

Given the competitive nature of the market that this product is being developed for, we are interested in beginning our test as soon as possible. A response by August 27 would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning our program please contact either our Director, Mark Fellows, or myself at Advance Transformer (708) 390-5000.

ID: nht90-3.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI CORPORATION

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to Dean J. Long from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 105; Std. 101)

TEXT:

I have two automotive instrument panel telltale warnings I wish to confirm are legal in the views of the NHTSA Legal Council and FMVSS. The attached sheet shows my two proposals.

The first is a 4 wheel antilock brake application. Techically, I believe this telltale is legal due to the approved abbreviation "ABS" being present. I have seen the antilock brake ISO symbol which is similar to the one I have shown except the car and "skid marks" are replaced with the "ABS" abbreviation. My question here is, Will this telltale fullfil the requirements or do I need to replace the car and "skid marks" ISO symbol with the "ABS" ISO symbol?

The second telltale is used for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. I have seen numerous telltales relating to this application. A few you may be familar with "SERVICE ENGINE SOON", "SERV ENG SOON", "CHECK ENGINE" or simply "CHECK". I would like to know two things concerning this application. One, is the word "CHECK" necessary with the engine outline? Two, is the engine outline an approved ISO symbol and if not yet will it be concidered at a later date?

Please respond on or before August 27 1990 as I must begin a production run with these telltales. Thank you for your assistance and if you need to contact us please call Mike Benoit at (313) 853-2266.

Attachment

Picture of two telltale warnings. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Ozeki -- Executive Vice President, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 214, "Side Door Strength"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Hiroshi Ozeki (A37; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Door Strength". Specifically, Mazda would like NHTSA's interpretation of the definition of the phrase, "...(t)he lowest point of the door;" . This phrase is found at S4(c)(2) under test procedures.

One of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 mm (please see attached figure). Thus, in order that the loading device used for compliance testing is positioned properly, Mazda needs to know what position, A or B, is the "lowest point of the door".

Should you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. Ted Kadoya (626-3263) at our Washington D.C. office.

Attachment

Drawing of side doors and moulding (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 13, 1990

FROM: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: General Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to T.J. Loughran (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On December 13, 1989 the Bargman Company requested an opinion regarding a turn signal lamp with a combined reflector. Acting Chief Counsel Stephen P. Wood issued an opinion on February 26, 1990. The opinion used the terms tail lamp and turn signal lamp interchangeably. The result is chaos, as you can see from the attached copy of a release published in an industry magazine.

Although I totally disagree with his opinion regarding he suitability of an amber reflector as an auxiliary device on the rear of a vehicle, it is not as disastrous as promulgating the idea that an amber tail lamp is also acceptable. I do not believe th e amber tail lamp was his intent but that has been the effect as a result of a inadvertent use of words.

Both of these conditions are a major disappointment to those who take highway safety seriously, first, because of the impairment of highway safety, and second, because the opinion was issued without benefit of review and comment by concerned individuals and organizations.

Your review of this condition will be appreciated. (Attached is an article entitled, It's the Law, Rear Amber Reflector, text omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Gerald F. Vinci -- Sun Refining and Marketing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to G.F. Vinci (A36; FMVSS 301; VSA 108(b)(1)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-79 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M. Champagne

TEXT:

Our research and development department at Sun Refining and Marketing Company is interested in converting the fuel system of a new vehicle from gasoline to propane. Sun does not intend to act as a manufacturer. The only portion of the vehicle which wil l be substantially altered is the fuel system. The vehicle is intended to be driven under normal traffic conditions and would maintain a lower emission level than that required under the Clean Air Act.

I spoke recently with Dee Fujita and Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office. After factually reviewing the project, both concluded that such a vehicle would not violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations. Ms. Fuj ita and Mr. Vinson did however caution that there may be requirements under state law.

We recognize the importance of highway safety and intend to fully comply with all applicable federal laws. To assist us, I respectfully request an opinion letter addressing compliance of such a vehicle with the Act and its regulations. If you need any additional information, please contact me at (215)246-8251.