ID: nht72-2.5

DATE: 12/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Cotter Atkinson Campbell & Kelsey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring about information on fuel tanks.

The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicles safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, then issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.

A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, and some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of interest. These reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The RTIS code number must be identified when ordering.

1. In Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Fire Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. PN-11-7579, December 1971, NYIS Codes PB-205240 and PB-208241 (2 Volumes)

2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No. PN-11-7309 (Cornwall Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, RTIS Code PB-159347

3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. FR-11-6919, June 1969, RTIS Code PB-191148 (1 Volume)

4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. PB-11-6696, September 1967, RTIS Code PB-177690 (2 Volume).

The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and other interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making system to (Illegible Word) FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, it contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for conducting in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust this information will provide some of the data you are seeking.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES OF COTTER, ATKINSON, CAMPBELL & KELSEY

October 27, 1972

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This office is interested in a law suit against the American Motors Corporation for the placing of the gas tank in the extreme rear of the car. We are trying to determine how many accidents and burns result from the placing of the gas tank in this position and the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank there. Do you have or do you know where we can get information concerning gas tank explosions or leakages that result from fires after a rear-end collision or the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank in that position?

We are also interested in any studies or investigations concerning the best position to put the gas tank. The car involved was manufactured in 1971 and any studies that would be applicable to cars of that year or before would be extremely helpful.

Please let us know of any charges in connection with obtaining the aforementioned information.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Paul M. Fish

ID: nht87-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I have previously responded to your r equests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.

Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard, which provides that "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11 .1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a sli ghtly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.

You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requirement of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.

S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvature requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches o f coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 an d I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11 .3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impac t test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.

Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefly described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1983 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in det ermining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the s urface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.

Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is n ot necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear MS. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that; "Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph." However the applicable items (illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us. we believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are,not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mentioned in the standard, such as following illuminations in Concrete; (1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals (3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS No. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as I11.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as I11.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

And we also believe that, no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation, considerably sharply projected armrests such as 111.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish 111.2 from 111.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant, we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability. Theref ore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest. INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides; "When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template (by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl, or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehic le is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: 86-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 5 1986

Mr. William Shapiro Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo child safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations "provide a higher level of protection." You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application (that is, secured by only a lap belt) and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.

With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise "approve" it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.

Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.

With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its child seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle-specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: "As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions." 44 FR 72131, at 72136; December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 9, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #213 - Volvo Child Safety Seat

Dear Ms. Jones:

This will confirm the discussion of March 26, 1986 between Volvo ad NHTSA personnel regarding the Volvo child safety seat. Based on that meeting, we request the following be clarified. Volvo is deeply committed to the safety of all ages of the occupants of vehicles. For the past 10 years, we have marketed in Europe a vehicle-specific rearward facing Volvo child safety seat. We believe the rearward facing mode is a safer way to travel for children than forward facing. Its experience in Sweden has been excellent. However, due to the particular wording in FMVSS #213, we were unable to market it in the U.S.

During the past 1-2 years we have designed ad developed a new Volvo child seat. In the Thursday, December 13, 1979 F. R. V44N241, P. 72136 (Docket #74-9, Notice 6) NHTSA commented on vehicle-specific child seats.

"However, since vehicle specific child restraints can provide adequate levels of protection when installed correctly, NHTSA is not prohibiting the manufacture of such devices. The new standard requires them to meet the performance requirements of the standard when secured by a vehicle lap belt. As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions."

Our development for the U. S. was based on this portion of the Federal Register. This seat is designed to be used by both infants (0-1 year) and toddlers (1-about 4 gears). The new Volvo child seat has universal application in automobiles. In addition, it has vehicle-specific modes for Volvo vehicles which provide yet a higher level of protection.

The Volvo child seat is desired to meet the performance requirements or FMVSS #213 when secured by a vehicle lap belt in the rearward racing mode for infants and the forward facing mode for toddlers. This is the universal installation. Because FMVSS #213 is a minimum performance standard, by fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS #213 in these modes we have fulfilled NHTSA intent as stated in the above mentioned Federal Register and believe this seat is designed in due care to meet the requirements of FMVSS #213.

The Volvo child seat in the vehicle-specific mode provides a higher level of protection than the universal application. This is accomplished by the use of an additional vehicle specific attachment strap and hardware. For both the infant and toddler Volvo vehicle-specific mode, the child rides rearward-facing in the vehicle.

We interpret that the new Volvo child seat, as described above, is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of FMVSS #213, and can be used in both the universal application and Volvo vehicle-specific modes. Your confirmation of that interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

If there are further questions about the Volvo child safety seat, please contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs WS:mc

ID: nht76-3.44

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Wagner Electric Corporation's October 21, 1975, question whether a trailer would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to provide a reservoir "that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," if the reservoir provided is either of two service brake system reservoirs on the vehicle, equipped with a pressure protection valve directly adjacent to each reservoir. The drawings enclosed in your letter indicate that the "protected tank" that is normally provided, separate from the service brake system, would be eliminated and either of the service brake system reservoirs would be used to satisfy S5.2.1.1 in the event of a parking brake application.

Your interpretation of S5.2.1.1 is correct. That section calls for a reservoir of air as an energy source that is used to release the vehicle's parking brakes after an automatic or manual application. In requiring that this reservoir be "unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system," the NHTSA means that a single failure of the service brake system would not result in loss of this air supply. With the pressure protection valves located as described in your enclosures, it appears that the system would comply with Section S5.2.1.1.

This "single failure" requirement must be distinguished from the requirement of S5.6.3 that the energy source for application of the parking brake be "not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system." The NHTSA has interpreted this requirement to require an uninterrupted energy source despite loss of all air pressure from the service brake system. We recognize that the language of the two passages is substantially identical, and should be changed for clarity.

In a recent proposal to revise the parking brake requirements of the standard (40 FR 56920, December 5, 1975), the NHTSA inadvertently failed to make this distinction clear in its newly-proposed definition of "parking brake system" and intends to publish a correction of the proposal in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

October 21, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49 CFR 571.121

Dear Sir: The early or first generation systems for FMVSS 121 complying trailers have completed almost a year of evaluation. Serious consideration for more economical systems has naturally evolved in this period of time.

In comparing tractor air brake systems and trailer air brake systems it is apparent that a good level of safety is provided on two axle tractors which employ only service reservoirs, i.e., do not have an isolated reservoir for the parking brake system. This introduced the probability that a (Illegible Word) axle trailer could benefit from a similar system schematic.

Our review of FMVSS 121 indicates that the equipment requirements are minimal - in keeping with the NHTSA policy of issuing performance oriented requirements. The system to be discussed later in this document meets all of the equipment requirements and will satisfy the related performance criteria.

In addition, all of the benefits for commercial or non-regulated necessities are maintained.

For introductory purpose we have reproduced the section from FMVSS 121 that deals with trailer equipment requirements:

S5.2.1.1 A reservoir shall be provided that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.

On single axle trailers utilizing one service reservoir, a separate reservoir or protected reservoir compartment for parking brake control is clearly required to meet S5.2.1.1.

Tandem axle trailers afford other opportunities for system considerations. The system shown on Figure 1 introduces a new set of operating parameters which will in fact eliminate the expense of adding a third (parking brake control) reservoir on tandem axle trailers. We interpret S5.2.1.1 to mean that a single loss of air pressure in the service brake system following pressurization of the reservoir system to 90 psi shall not prevent a single release of the parking brakes.

The system shown on Figure 1 provides a separate reservoir and anti-lock system for the service brakes on each axle. Failure of system A will not reduce the pressure in service reservoir B or vise versa. The presence of one service reservoir pressurized to 90 psi will permit a full release of the parking brakes when the supply line is pressurized to the maximum 45 to 48 psi. The supply line pressure will be limited to this value by the pressure protection valve [which has an integral check valve] in the supply line immediately adjacent to the failed service reservoir. The four parking chambers will then receive a pressure of approximately 66 psi as delivered by the amplifying relay valve which receives air from the intact service reservoir.

This evaluation is based on the venting of one trailer service reservoir to atmosphere after the system is charged to 90 psi. We consider this to be the most extreme service brake system failure which can occur on the trailer. Note that a pressure loss in both service reservoirs would require two service brake system failures. Functional requirements following multiple service system failures is not required in any other section of FMVSS 121 and is not required in S5.2.1.1. We, therefore, conclude that the system shown on Figure 1 meets the intended requirements of S5.2.1.1.

The proposed system provides an opportunity to reduce the cost of the brake system required on tandem axle trailers. A comparison of the proposed system, which is Figure 1, with the existing system as shown on Figure 2 will show that the modification entails the addition of two check valves, one tee and three short lines to the amplifying relay valve and permits the elimination of the large parking brake reservoir, reservoir drain cock, supply line to the reservoir, and the cost of installing the reservoir on the vehicle. All of the parts shown on the schematics are currently being supplied for production FMVSS 121 trailer systems. The cost reduction can not be accurately defined by Wagner, but we estimate that the saving could range from $ 20.00 to $ 30.00 per vehicle depending on variable labor costs, reservoir cost, and vehicle configuration.

We encourage any NHTSA comments or questions regarding the system shown on Figure 1 and the requirements of S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. It has been customary for requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel's office which seek system or product "endorsement" to be answered by stating that the requesting party should be able to make that determination themselves.

In the instant case, we have made the determination that the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers (Figure 1) is functionally acceptable and in compliance, and are therefore reporting it as such.

The dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers will be entering production in the immediate future. We would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and are anxious to answer any questions or supply additional information.

If you have any concern for the performance of the dual service - two reservoir brake system for tandem axle trailers or its compliance with respect to FMVSS 121 an early response from you will avoid the possibility of economic loss to the depressed trailer industry if, for some reason, they would have to reconvert this more economical system to earlier configurations.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 1

DUAL SERVICE - TWO RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

(Graphics omitted) FIGURE 2

DUAL SERVICE - THREE RESERVOIR BRAKE SYSTEM FOR TANDEM AXLE TRAILER

ID: Colman

Mr. Earl Colman
Colman Equipment Co.
901 Foster Drive
Casper, WY 82601

Dear Mr. Colman:

This is in response to your letter of January 21, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You state that you run a full line truck equipment company that qualifies as a final stage truck manufacturer, and that you ensure that the vehicles your company manufactures comply with all applicable safety requirements. You express concern, however, that other companies conducting similar operations in your area are less conscientious than your company. As a consequence, you suspect that the number of small commercial trucks being operated in your area that are not properly certified is greater than the number that are. This had led you to ask what the agencys enforcement position would be in three distinct scenarios.

The first scenario involves a new truck dealer who delivers an incomplete vehicle, such as a chassis cab, to a private customer, such as a farmer or rancher, but makes no mention of the vehicle certification requirements. You state that in this circumstance, the purchaser will often complete the vehicle himself or have a local machine shop do the necessary work. Under the statutes and regulations that this agency administers, there is nothing that would restrict a dealer from directly selling an incomplete vehicle to a consumer. In this circumstance, the party who completes the vehicle by adding components that are necessary for the vehicle to perform its intended function would be considered the final stage manufacturer, regardless of whether that party is the purchaser himself or a commercial entity such as a local machine shop.

If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). To assist the final stage manufacturer in carrying out this responsibility, the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.4 require an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle a document (referred to as the incomplete vehicle document, or IVD, or, more commonly, as the build book) that specifies, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) to be assigned to the vehicle once it is completed, a listing of the vehicle types (e.g., truck, multi-purpose passenger vehicle, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle can be manufactured, and a listing of all FMVSS that apply to each of those vehicle types. The IVD must also specify, with respect to each of those standards, either (1) that the vehicle will conform to the standard upon completion if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (2) the conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (3) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle. In order to assure that the final stage manufacturer understands what further steps are needed to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS, the dealer must ensure that the applicable incomplete vehicle document is either furnished with the vehicle or is forwarded immediately after the purchase to the party who is to complete the vehicle.

As provided in the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.6, the final stage manufacturer of a vehicle built in two or more stages must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. The final stage manufacturer must also affix a label to the completed vehicle certifying such conformance. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle manufactured after the date an applicable FMVSS takes effect unless the vehicle complies with the standard and is so certified. The agencys Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) investigates suspected violations of section 30112(a), and where a probable violation is found, will refer the matter to this Office with a recommendation for civil penalties. Under 49 U.S.C.

30165(a)(1), a civil penalty of up to $5,000 can be imposed for each violation of section 30112(a). A separate violation exists for each vehicle introduced into interstate commerce in violation of that provision. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

In the second scenario described in your letter, the new truck dealer removes a pickup box from a certified vehicle and sells the vehicle as a chassis cab. If this is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle, under our regulations the dealer would be considered a vehicle alterer. The certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 provide that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, must allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and must affix an additional label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. Section 567.7 additionally provides that [i]f the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight rating of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified on the alterers certification label. See 49 CFR 567.7(b).

It is unlikely that the dealer could certify the vehicle as conforming to all applicable FMVSS once it has removed the pickup box, because removal of the box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In addition, by eliminating substantial weight from the vehicle, the removal could affect the vehicles compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems. It would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for the dealer to sell such a nonconforming vehicle. As previously noted a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per vehicle can be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a) for a violation of this nature.

If the dealer removes the pickup box after the vehicles first retail sale, the removal of the box would not constitute an alteration under our regulations and the dealer would not have the certification responsibilities described above. However, in this circumstance the dealer would be subject to the statutory prohibition in 49 U.S.C.

30122(b) against knowingly [making] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable [FMVSS]. As previously noted, removal of the pickup box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard No. 108, and, by virtue of removing substantial weight from the vehicle, could affect its compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105. By the terms of Section 30122(b), the making inoperative prohibition does not apply in circumstances where the dealer reasonably believes the vehicle . . . will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Unless it could establish that it had such a reasonable belief, a dealer who violates the making inoperative prohibition is subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per vehicle under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

The third scenario described in your letter involves ranch supply stores in small distant communities that stock and sell ranch and contractor bodies for pickup trucks. You state that in selling these components, the stores often advise the customer not to be concerned about the need to certify the vehicle once it is completed and that the component manufacturers are often aware of this practice. Under the statutes and regulations that we administer, there is nothing that would require a party selling the components you have described to alert the purchaser to the need to certify its vehicle after the components are installed.

I hope this explanation of our statutory and regulatory authorities is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

NCC-10:CSachs:crs:5-1-02:65238:cyt(5/1/02)
revised per KWeinstein 6-7-02
revised 7/5/02
Doc. 24173; NHTSA # CC2002033445
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
NCC-10 Csachs, cyt
NPS-01; NSA-01
Redbooks(2), Part 567

ID: CA_HMMV

Ms. Leah Kelly
California Department
of Motor Vehicles
2415 First Avenue M/S D196
Sacramento, CA 95818

Dear Ms. Kelly:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry in which you ask if California may refuse to register surplus military vehicles that might not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and that do not have vehicle identification numbers. You state that the California Department of Motor Vehicles has:

encountered a number of customers requesting to register US Military surplus Humvees, manufactured approximately 1983 to the present. These vehicles do not have 17 character vehicle identification numbers, US Emission labels, nor US Safety labels. In addition, they have no year model designation.

You indicate that some Humvees have already been registered in California, and you are attempting to determine if California has legal authority to cancel existing registrations and to refuse any new registration requests for lack of compliance with the Federal safety standards.

In our opinion, Californias refusal to register these vehicles is not prohibited by this agency.

By way of background, the FMVSSs apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. 30112). The express preemption of State standards by the FMVSSs is established by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b):

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter ....

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), California could not establish a standard that applied to the manufacture or sale of new vehicles in California on an aspect of performance regulated by an FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the FMVSS.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the states. A state is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on state operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State.

In the situation you present, there was no FMVSS that applied to the vehicles in question. Having recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, the agency established a limited exemption for military vehicles. Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications and sold directly to the US military are exempted from the requirement to comply with the FMVSSs. This exclusion was based on a determination that compliance with safety standards could affect the capability of a vehicle to fulfill its military mission. In establishing this exemption, the agency also anticipated that surplus military vehicles would not be sold to civilians. While NHTSA has no authority over the disposal of surplus military vehicles, we have advised the Department of Defense against the sale of surplus military vehicles, including the Humvee, to civilians. ^[1]

Since there was no FMVSS applicable to the vehicles in question, there is no conflict between the FMVSSs and a California requirement that the vehicles meet safety standards. As such, a state would not be preempted from requiring surplus military vehicles sold to civilians to meet FMVSS requirements as a condition of state registration.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.7
d.1/23/04

ID: GF009450-2

John Russell Deane III, Esq.
General Counsel
Specialty Equipment Market Association
1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004




Dear Mr. Deane:

This is in response to your November 30, 2005, letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers change a vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard). Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for the purposes other than retail, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

We would like to conclude this letter with a couple of observations. First, I note that your letter suggested that the "make inoperative" provision should not apply to the situation because it was not discussed by the agency during the FMVSS 110 rulemaking. However, because the "make inoperative" provision is statutory and applies to all FMVSSs, the agency does not separately address this statutory prohibition in each rulemaking action.

I also note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/05

ID: 8940

Mr. Sam C. Nigro
Bus Product Manager
Webasto Thermosystems
1598 E. Lincoln
Madison Heights, MI 48071

Dear Mr. Nigro:

This responds to your letter about auxiliary heaters fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would "burn CNG and LNG same as the engine." In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner.

If your heater were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously- certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized.

If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including the CNG standard. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated.

The prohibition of 108(a(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG-powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

The "render inoperative" prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them.

I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address:

Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#303 d:10/5/93

ID: hyundai.ztv

Mr. Roger Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps.

You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute.

We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/2/03

ID: aiam0789

Dear Mr. Kreuger: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1972, petitioning t amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' Your petition both requests that amendments be made to the standard, and comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565). For the reasons indicated below, your petition is hereby denied.; You petition that the 4- inch-per-minute burn rate specified in th standard be changed to 12- inches-per-minute. Your argument is that a 4-inch-per-minute rate is unreasonable because variations in the burn rates of materials make it impossible, without averaging test results, to guarantee a 4-inch-per- minute rate for the majority of materials used in vehicle interiors. You suggest that a 12-inch-per-minute rate is reasonable because only 1.2 inches of material would burn in 6 seconds, the time you specify as necessary for a vehicle to be stopped from 70 mph, and maintain that a 12- inch-per-minute rate should at least be specified until the NHTSA compiles a list of approved fire retardant additives.; Your request to change the 4- inch-per-minute burn rate to one of 1 inches is denied. The 4-inch-per- minute rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provides a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle, in the event fire should occur. In addition, the combustion by-products of some vehicle interior materials are such that the materials must burn at a rate that is low enough that vehicle occupants will not be overcome or panicked by harmful gases before they can escape from the vehicle. We believe that a 4-inch- per-minute burn rate is necessary to respond to this need. With respect to the justification you provide for a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate, the NHTSA does not agree that this test reflects adequate escape time. Testing at the University of Oklahoma has indicated, rather, that escape times that are needed exceed considerably the time needed to merely stop a moving vehicle. It must also be remembered that materials burn most slowly in the horizontal position, and therefore the laboratory horizontal burn rate cannot be used as a direct indication of how much material might be burned in an on-the-road event.; The NHTSA does not agree that the 4- inch-per-minute rate should b modified because the burn rates of identical materials may vary. While we understand that such variations do occur, this fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in meeting the standard. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by relaxing the burn rate. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials. With reference to your request that the standard provide for the averaging of burn rate results, the structure of the motor vehicle safety standards does not allow for the averaging of test results. This is because the NHTSA must be able to establish firmly that a material does not conform to the requirements, on the basis of a limited-sample test. This requires that each material meet the requirements when subjected to the test procedures of the standard. Again, minor and occasional deviations will be considered similarly to problems involving variability, in assessing whether a manufacturer has used due care.; Your request that the NHTSA approve flame-retardant treatments if th 4-inch- per-minute rate is maintained is denied. The NHTSA does not specify materials which manufacturers are to use to conform to standards. The responsibility for conformity rests with manufacturers and it is for them to determine which materials and treatments they should use to meet the standard's requirements.; You have requested a one-year delay in the effective date of th standard. This request is denied. The NHTSA believes the effective date of September 1, 1972, has provided sufficient time for manufacturers to conform to the standard's requirements.; With reference to the test procedures of the standard, you petitio that a test cabinet recommended by Daimler-Benz be substituted for the test cabinet specified in the standard, arguing that the Daimler-Benz cabinet provides better ventilation, faster dissipation of smoke, a lower heat buildup, and more uniform test results. The NHTSA will evaluate, as part of its compliance program, the test procedures of the standard. If the NHTSA determines that the test procedures should be modified to improve the reliability of results, the characteristics of the Daimler-Benz cabinet as well as other available information will be utilized in evaluating possible changes in these procedures. If manufacturers do use other test procedures, they should correlate, to support a showing of 'due care,' the results they obtain with results obtained using the procedures specified in the standard.; You also request that the standard be amended to provide for th conditioning of samples within a range of 73.5 degrees F. *+* 3.5 degrees, and a relative humidity of 50 *+* 5%. The standard presently specifies a conditioning temperature of 70 degrees F. at a relative humidity of 50%. This request is denied. Test conditions are specified as exact values in the motor vehicle safety standards because they represent a legal standard, not manufacturers' procedures. Manufacturers should design their tests, choosing their own procedures as necessary, to ensure that the materials will perform satisfactorily at the specified conditions.; You have also requested a more precise definition of the gas used i the test procedure, and that the standard specify a ventilated hood. These requests are denied. The NHTSA has judged the description of the gas to be used in the test cabinet to be sufficiently specific. With respect to ventilation of the test cabinet, manufacturers are free, subject to the limitations described above, to modify this aspect of the procedure as well.; You also request that the standard be amended to exclude smal components, and comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking of May 26, 1972, to the effect that neither testing both sides of materials nor testing separate padding materials should be required. Each of these points is being considered as part of our preparation of an amendment to the standard, based on the notice of May 26, 1971. Your comments on these matters have been considered in the preparation of this amendment, which we plan to publish in the near future.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;