ID: nht94-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 16, 1994

FROM: Mark Warlick -- FMVSS Coordinator, Four Winds International Corporation

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (REDBOOK (2); PART 302)

TEXT: This letter concerns a question of what legal documentation is required for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 compliance.

Four Winds International Corporation is a manufacturer of Class A and Class C motorhomes. I am in process of organizing our FMVSS letters of compliance from our vendors that supply our interior materials. I have included a sample of a letter that I hav e received from a vendor. Does this letter meet NHTSA requirements for certification of compliance for FMVSS No. 302 as far as proof of compliance by Four Winds?

If this letter does not contain sufficient information to prove compliance by Four Winds, can you send me a sample of what we need in our records per vendor to show compliance?

enclosure

December 9, 1994

We have tested the panel from Northland Enterprise that was made with COR63-AX-40. We used the MVSS302 flame test, and obtained a flame rating of 0.64 inch per minute.

If you have any questions regarding this information or on any products in general, please contact us.

Sincerely,

INTERPLASTIC CORPORATION

Rey de la Rosa Group Leader Physical Testing

ID: nht94-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 19, 1994

FROM: Glyn Thomas -- Thomas Tire

TO: Walter Myers -- Department Of Transportation

TITLE: Re: 19 CFR 12.80

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO GLYN THOMAS (REDBOOK (6); PART 591; STD 109; STD. 119) AND 6/13/81 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD (STD 119)

TEXT: I am writing to you after our telephone conversation of today's date. This is a very urgent matter and I am writing to ask for a waiver to be allowed to continue to import truck casings into the U.S.A. for the purpose of retreading.

Some Japanese casings do not have the D.O.T. marking on the side wall. To allow for this, tires with less than 2/32" and being imported solely for the purpose of retreading are allowed entry.

However, my point is that tires with less than 2/32" tread remaining are usually not of sufficiently good quality.

I maintain that a declaration signed by the importer and confirmed by the receiving retread shop, at the time of entry, stating that the casings are being imported solely for the purpose of retreading, could [Illegible Word] solve this problem.

If this is not done, then it would badly effect the total number of casings available for U.S. retread shops and definitely effect production.

Is it possible to mail or fax me immediately, a waiver to this effect. Thus allowing the continued smooth import of casings.

ID: nht94-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 19, 1994

FROM: Patricia J. Jackson -- Owner, Patnel Co.; Patt Jackson

TO: Mr. Racht, Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO PATRICIA JACKSON (REDBOOK (2); STD, 213; PART 302)

TEXT: I have just received a patent on my cushion. I needed to know if their are any safety standards that I need to pass on my cushion. I am sending a pamphlet to help you under stand my product and how the cushion is used. Should I meet any fire safety st andards since my cushion is used by children of all ages.

If you should have any question regarding this please feel free to call me at (314) 839-5382

ENCLOSURE

December 19, 1994

Deirdre R. Fujita NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Phone call conversation in December 7, 1994

Enclosed is the brochure of my product "BoosterBuddy" a childs car cushion that comforts and protects. The cushion is used under the booster seat that is state regulated. This cushion has rolled pads on each side to provide comfort. The cushion prot ects tha car upholstery from the load bearing friction caused by the state regulated restraint seats. The cushion is used under the restraint seat from 0 to 40 pounds. The cushion can be used by the older child over 40 pounds with a safety belt.

Please send me a letter stating if my product meets all safety regulations required. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Enclosure (OMITTED)

ID: nht94-5.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. F. Wareham -- Technical Director, Total Vehicle Security, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1/26/93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DAVID H.B. LEE; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/9/94 FROM R. E. WAREHAM TO J. WOMACK (OCC 10573)

TEXT: We have received your letter of December 9, 1994, to John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel who responded to David Lee on January 26, 1993. This will confirm that his opinion regarding the "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor" remains the official positi on of this agency.

We shall be pleased to meet with you when you come to Washington late in January. You may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office to make arrangements (202-366-5263). We will be particularly interested in learning more about how the device "will be marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner."

ID: nht94-5.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1994

FROM: Baysul Parker -- Manager, Safety Department, California Trucking Association

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BAYSUL PARKER (A43; PART 567) 11/20/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON, 7/1/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO GENE FOUTS, 3/19/91 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JERRY TASS AN, AND 5/24/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN PAUL BARBER

TEXT: I have received numerous inquiries recently regarding whether an alterer can alter and change the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle prior to sale or first registered, and also on used vehicles. This is generally in regards to vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more, and the owner desires to lower the GVWR so that the driver would not be required to possess a commercial drivers license to operate. I have reviewed 49 CFR, Sections 567.4, 567.7 and 571.115.

As I presently understand the statutes, only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, including a VIN number. The original manufacturer, or an alterer approved by NHTSA who performs a manufacturing process prior to first sale or registration, can change the GV WR. Is there a list of NHTSA approved alterers?

Please furnish any valid information, decisions and/or interpretations you may have that is related to this subject.

ID: nht94-5.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/94 FROM MICHAEL LOVE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10533)

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591.

Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market ca rs would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation.

You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after impo rtation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permi ssible under 591.5(c).

Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compli ance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Re gistered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592.

If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Can Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 59 3.

ID: nht94-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-26-88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN J. DUNCAN; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-28-94 FROM PAUL N. WAGNER TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 28, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of S4.2.1 in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Section S4.2.1 states

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

Your questions and our response to each follow.

1) Can the agency respond specifically to what the seat adjustment refers to? Does this mean only that once a seat recliner (used only for comfort), or a seat slide track, is positioned at its normal driving position, or appropriate testing position, it may not be moved until the completion of the test?

Or, does it mean that while the static test is conducted a recliner mechanism, for example, can not change position during the test, due to bending or twisting, or release of internal parts, even though the frame did not break during the test? In oth er words, the recliner may bend or twist, but the seating structure remained intact, despite deformation of the recliner mechanism.

Section S4.2.1 requires a seat, with one exception, to remain in the position to which it was adjusted while the force specified in S4.2 is applied. The exception is that vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats may occur while the load is applied. Section S4.2 requires a seat to withstand certain specified forces. NHTSA has previously stated that S4.2 "allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained." (Se e August 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.) NHTSA would not consider any deformation allowed by S4.2 (for example, bending or twisting) by itself to be a change in adjustment position. However, if bending or twisting resulted in the seat movin g from one adjustment position to another (for example, a change in detent position within the adjustment mechanism), there would be a change in adjustment position.

In the example provided in your letter, the adjustment position of the seat back recliner mechanism is caused by the gear mechanism being "destroyed," even though the recliner mechanism itself does not separate from the seat. It appears that this scenar io involves more than deformation as the seat back is free to move to a variety of adjustment positions. Therefore, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1.

2) An integrated seat has several angle adjustments on its recliner, which are only for the purpose of comfort. In reference to the static testing, does the integrated seat need to be tested in its designed riding position, or need it be tested in ev ery possible reclined position?

Both S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) require the seat to withstand the specified load "(i)n any position to which it can be adjusted." The usage of the term "any," when "used in connection with a range of values or set of items," is specifically defined at 49 CFR 57 1.4 as meaning "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." Thus, NHTSA may chose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. Section S4.2(c) incorporates the requiremen ts of S4.2(a) and S4.2(b); therefore, NHTSA may also chose to test an integrated seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs:

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations.

BACKGROUND

The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved.

Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement.

It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs.

Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes.

The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today.

To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4.

APPROVAL PROCESS

GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are

1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564.

The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern.

Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance.

2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations).

3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like.

Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; John Womack

TO: Roger Matoba

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/29/94 FROM ROGER MATOBA TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patricia Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installat ion of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have should er belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement.

Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing "rear outboard designated seating positions" in new passenger vans with a GVW R of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term "rear outboard designated seating position" excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are "adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehi cle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions." Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions.

NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/sh oulder belts if they choose to do so.

With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from existing the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the be lt.

They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO PATRICK BOYD

TEXT: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994.

The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent. . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are:

"First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date."

Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standar d No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehi cles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle.

"Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effe ctive date continuously.)"

A replacement reflex reflector manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requi rement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured.

As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye.