ID: 86-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TO: NHTSA, Legal Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/86, TO DON PANZER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 111

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find a photograph, illustration and description of a device designed to serve as a supplementary hazard warning signal for automobiles.

Since this device is a light and is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly I would appreciate an interpretation of it's suitability for the North American automotive market as per standards No. 108 (Lights) and No. 111 (Mirrors).

Should you require any information not already contained in this letter I would be please to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

SUPPLEMENTARY HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FOR AUTOMOBILES

This patented device serves as a supplementary hazard warning light for automobiles. It is included within the body or housing of the side rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively, it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions. It is designed to flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lights. Like current hazard warning lights this device can also perform as a directional signal

Present hazard warning lights are usually included in the front and rear light clusters. In bad weather or because of an accumulation of dirt,ice,etc. on the lenses, hazard warning lights can become less effective. Furthermore, if emergency work is being carried out on a vehicle, for example changing a tire, one or more of the existing warning lights can be invisible for relatively long periods of time thus reducing the warning to approaching traffic.

Like the high-mount brake light this device is located higher up on the vehicle to provide better visibility to oncoming traffic. Furthermore, because it is part of the side mirror configuration it is mounted well outside the range of the front and rear light clusters thus making it potentially more conspicious than current hazard warning lights.

FOR MORE INFORMTION CONTACT: Don Panzer SPRAY-RIDER, INC.

1

HAZARD WARNING APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

This invention relates to electrical, hazard warning apparatus for motor vehicles, of the kind in which, when required, lamps are made to flash continuously on the outside of the vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle in a stationary and possibly dangerous position. Such hazard warning apparatus is hereinafter referred to as "of the kind described".

Hazard warning lamps at present fitted to motor vehicles are usually included in the front and rear lamp clusters. In bad weather conditions or because of an accumulation of dirt on the lenses, hazard warning lamps in both these positions can become less effective. The hazard warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle are more likely to be ineffective than those at the front for these reasons.

When work is being carried out, for example the changing of a wheel, one or both hazard warning lamps, at the front or rear, can be invisible for relatively long periods and so give a misleading signal or fail to give any warning at all to approaching vehicles.

An indication that the usual position of hazard warning lamps is not really satisfactory is that on emergency vehicles special hazard warning lamps are usually fitted high up, for example on the roof of the vehicle.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the effectiveness of hazard warning apparatus.

The present invention consists in hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

To give a driver the required field of view exterior, rear-view mirrors must project well to the side of the vehicle, and be mounted at or above the waist, or window-sill level of the vehicle body. A repeater hazard warning lamp provided, according to the invention, in or on the rear-view mirror is therefore in a conspicuous position and at a higher level than the usual front and rear lamp clusters. The invention is applicable to exterior, rear-view mirrors adapted to be mounted in any of the usual positions on a vehicle, including on the door, wing, or windscreen pillar of the vehicle or on a laterally-projecting bracket clamped to the gutter rail of the vehicle body or to a luggage rack on the roof.

Most motor vehicles now have an exterior rear-view mirror on the near side in addition to one on the off-side of the vehicle. Each exterior rear-view mirror is preferably provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

It is preferred, and may be required by law, that the repeated hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

Hazard warning lamps often serve also as direction indicators, the lamps on only one side at a time of the vehicle then being arranged to flash. In such apparatus the repeater hazard warning lamp may then be

3 arranged to be operated with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

The repeater hazard warning lamp may be included within a body of the rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.

Within the same inventive concept the present invention comprises a motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

The present invention will now be described by way of example within reference to the accompanying drawing which is a perspective view of a rear-view mirror for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle and as seen when the observer is looking forwards from the rear of the vehicle.

The door mirror shown in the drawing comprises a mirror head 1 and a mounting bracket 2 by which the mirror is mounted on the vehicle door. The mirror head has a cowl-shaped body 3, which may be made from metal or plastics, foamed polyurethane for example. The body 3 houses a reflective element 4 and a repeater hazard warning Lamp 5 comprising a cavity 6 within the body 3 opening at a window 7 facing in the same direction as the reflective element 4, an electric lamp bulb 8 in the cavity 6 and a 'hazard' orange coloured plastics lens 9 closing the window but shown in the drawing partly broken away to show the lamp bulb 8. The lens 9 is secured by screws 10 engaging screw

4, threaded holes 11 in lugs 12 on the body 3. The bulb 8 is a festoon bulb mounted in a conventional festoon bulb holder 13 in front of a reflector 14. Though only one lamp bulb 8 is shown, there could be more than one bulb arranged, for example end to end to provide better light distribution and greater safety if one should fail. Other types of electric lamp bulbs may be provided.

Though the window is shown as arranged along the upper edge of the reflective element 4, and this is probably the best position, it could be along either of the other two outer edges of the reflective element 4, that is the lower edge 15 or the outer side edge 16.

A further window, facing forwards could be provided in the mirror head body so that the light of the repeater hazard warning lamp would also be visible from the front of the vehicle. Alternatively the repeater hazard warning lamp 5 could be mounted on a flat top of the body with an inverted, hollow, transparent or translucent cover over the lamp bulb so that the light would be visible in all directions.

The repeater hazard warning lamp 4 is electrically connected by a cable (not shown) which passes through the interior of the body 3 and the mounting bracket 2, the vehicle door and door pillar (not shown) to the wiring of the conventional hazard warning apparatus of the vehicle.

This hazard warning lamp apparatus according to the invention is well able to provide additional protection in hazard situations. The mirror in which the repeater hazard warning lamp is included can perform the normal functions to an extorior, rear-view

5 mirror. As the repeater hazard warning lamp is in a higher position than the conventional front and rear lamp clusters it is less exposed to soiling by road dirt. During forward motion of the vehicle the cowling shape of the body 3 protects the lens 9 from road spray.

6 CLAIMS

1. Hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

2. Hazard warning apparatus according to claim 1 wherein there is an exterior, rear-view mirror on each side of the vehicle and each mirror is provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

3. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body of the exterior rear-view mirror.

4. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any proceding claim wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

5. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

6. Hazard warning apparatus according to any preceding claim which is adapted to serve also as a direction indicator wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is operable only with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

7. A motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be

7 connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

8. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body housing the exterior rear-view mirror.

9. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 or claim 8 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

10. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 9 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp has a window adjacent an outer edge of the reflective element.

11. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a door mirror.

12. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a wing mirror.

13. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp, substantially as described herein with reference to, and as illustrated by the accompanying drawing.

14. Hazard warning apparatus for a motor vehicle substantially as herein described.

ID: 86-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joseph H. Barnett, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Joseph H. Barnett, Esq. Puckett, Barnett, Larson, Mickey Wilson & Ochsenschlager One Constitution Drive P.O. Box 1287 Aurora, Illinois 60507

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This responds to your letter concerning a brake shoe assembly invented by your client. You stated that it is contemplated that the item will be sold in the replacement or so called after market and asked whether governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake shoe assembly, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not by required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Please note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

N.H.T.A. 40O - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

RE: Belk Brake Assembly Patent Application Serial No. 06/804,166

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This office is counsel for George L. Belk, the inventor of an improved brake shoe assembly. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the abstract describing same along with figures 1 and 2 of the mechanical drawing submitted with the patent application.

In previous art, the webs are welded to the table and by this invention they are held together by slots and belts. Prototypes have been successfully road-tested for many thousands of miles under heavy duty conditions.

It is contemplated that the market for the item will be in the replacement or so-called attachment. Could you please advise if governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service.

Very truly yours,

J.H. Barnett

JHB/me

Enclosures

BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY

ABSTRACT

A bake shoe assembly for a vehicle includes a generally arcuate platform, to which a pad of friction lining is attached, and with is selectively connectable to a pair of supporting webs. Each web has a plurality o radially extending peripheral projections received by corresponding slots provided in the platform. Clamp means are provided for pressing the webs against the platform such that the projections and slots cooperate to locate the webs immovably on the platform. The platform and friction lining may thereby be removed from the webs while the webs remain installed within the brake drum of the vehicle.

ID: 86-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hubert J. Thomiszer -- Senior Mechanical Engineer, Triodyne, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hubert J. Thomiszer Senior Mechanical Engineer Triodyne Inc. 5950 West Touhy Avenue Niles, Illinois 60648

Dear Mr. Thomiszer:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether the 20 g acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat was based on a barrier impact test and, if so, at what speed. You also asked whether the 20 g acceleration was established taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors. Your questions are responded to below.

The requirements to which you refer are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in relevant part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight of the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction:

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weigh; of the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction . . .

The basic requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was part of Standard No. 207 as that standard was established as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 32 FR 2415, February 3, 1967. (The standard was later amended by revising certain other requirements, extending its application to additional vehicle types, adding requirements, and clarifying and restructuring the standard.)

As required by section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards were promulgated under a tight statutory deadline and here based on existing safety standards. Standard No. 207 was based on the Society of automotive engineers' (207) Recommended Practice J879, Passenger Car Front Seat and Seat Adjuster (November 1963), and on the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Standard No. 515/6a, one of a number of standards which were developed for Government vehicles.

With respect to the requirements at issue, section 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice J879 provided in relevant part:

3.1 Seat Adjusters and Seat Frame Combination--Each combination of seat adjusters and seat frame, together with their attachments, shall be capable of sustaining horizontal forward and rearward static load (L) equal to 20 times the weight of the fully trimmed seat. One-half of this load (L/2) shall be applied at points 8.00 in. above the seat frame rear attaching points as shown in Fig. 1. The 8.00 in. load application points represent the approximate vertical center of gravity of a fully trimmed passenger car front seat. . .

We have been advised by our technical staff that the requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was based on the forces involved in a 30 mph barrier impact test. Moreover, this requirement does not include any adjustment to take account of the increased loading on seat anchors that could result from passengers who are unrestrained impacting the seat in front of them in a frontal impact.

You may wish to contact the Society of Automotive Engineers for information concerning the development of their recommended practice.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 17, 1986

Chief Counsel Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Erika Jones: I was advised by Mr. Steve Oesch to forward my request for information to your attention.

I would like to know two features of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 207.

1. Was the 20G acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat based an a barrier impact test and if so at what speed.

2. Was the 20G acceleration taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors.

I will appreciate receiving this information as quickly as possible. there be any questions regarding this request, please call me collect at 677-V430.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Hubert J. Thomiszer, M.E., P.E Senior Mechanical Engineer

ID: 86-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (HMC)' requesting clarification of how the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would affect a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You explained that vehicles manufactured by HMC are currently imported and distributed i the United States by Hyundai Motor America. However, in February 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) to be sold under the Mitsubishi trademark. You asked if the vehicles sold by HMC to Hyumdai Motor America and Mitsubishi must separately comply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.

During the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirement, each manufacturer is required to certify that a certain percentage of its vehicles meet thy automatic restraint requirement. For example, for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987, a manufacturer must equip 10 percent of its vehicles with automatic restraints. On March 21, 1986, NHTSA adopted a final rule which affects how a vehicle manufactured by one company and sold by another is to be counted for the purposes of the phase-in. The rule permits manufacturers to determine by contract in whose fleet the vehicle would be counted. Thus, for example, HMC could provide by contract with Mitsubishi America that all of the vehicles HMC manufactures for Mitsubishi are to be counted as a part of HMC's fleet. Thus, under that contract, HMC would have to count all the vehicles it manufactures for sale to Hyundai Motor America and to Mitsubishi and ensure that 10 percent of that total are equipped with automatic restraints during the first year of the phase-in.

In the absence of a contract, NHTSA's final rule of March 21, 1986, adopted several rules of attribution. The one relevant to your situation is that a vehicle imported into the United States is attribute to its importer. Thus, in the absence of a contract between HMC and Mitsubishi, the vehicles imported by Mitsubishi from HMC would be counted in Mitsubishi's fleet and 10 percent of Mitsubishi's total fleet would have to have automatic restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 26, 1986

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea ("HMC"). We request clarification of 49 CFR Section 571.208 as it relates to a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities.

At present, motor vehicles manufactured by HMC are imported and distributed in the United States by Hyundai Motor America, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC. Commencing in February, 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 motor vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi America") under the Mitsubishi trademark. The vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America, however, will be substantially identical to the Hyundai Excel already being sold by Hyundai Motor America, except for some cosmetic differences, and will have HMC's own certification of compliance affixed to vehicles.

HMC requests your interpretation of FMVSS 208 as applies to Hyundai vehicles sold by both Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America. Based on our own analysis, and after some informal preliminary discussions with NHTSA's Legal Department, HMC believes that Hyundai vehicles sold by HMC to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America must separately con- form to FMVSS 208. Thus, for example, HMC believes that FMVSS 208 requires that 10% of 1987 model Hyundai vehicles sold by Hyundai Motor America and 10% of 1987 model Hyunlai vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America must each contain passive restraint systems.

Please advise to the proper interpretation of FMVSS 208 as it applies to Hyundai vehicles sold to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America.

Very truly yours,

Finbarr J. O'Niell Vice President and General Counsel

FJO'N/dd

ID: 86-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K.A. Ziomek -- Sales Representative, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/27/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Robert V. Potter (Std. 213). 3/17/89 letter from Robert V. Potter to NHTSA

TEXT:

Ms. K.A. Zionek Sales Representative TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division 61166 Van Dyke Washington, MI 48094

Dear Ms. Ziomek:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 5571.213). Specifically, you asked about the effects of an amendment that becomes effective August 12, 1986. I will address your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

First, you stated that your company is the manufacturer of a child restraint called the "Child Love Seat." A final rule published February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5335) amends Standard No. 213 to require all child seats equipped with a tether strap to pass the 30 mph test without attaching the tether strap. This requirement becomes effective August 12, 1986. Your letter states that you will stop manufacturing the Child Love Seat on August 12 as a result of this amendment. You asked whether your distributors could continue to sell Child Love Seats after August 12, 1986. The answer is yes.

In the preamble to the February 13, 1986 final rule, NHTSA stated the following:

The new requirement would apply only to child seats manufactured after the effective date of this rule. Child seat; manufactured before the effective date of this rule may be sold even if their tether strap must be attached to pass the 30 mph test. Hence, the agency does not see any reason for child seat dealers to be confused by this rule (51 FR 5337).

In accordance with this language, your dealers and distributors may continue to sell Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, until the inventories are depleted, even if these sales occur on or after August 12, 1986.

Your second question was which party would bear the liability for such sales. Since there is no violation of our requirements for selling Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, as explained above there is no liability to be borne by any party, unless, of course, the seats do not comply with the pre-August 12 version of the standard.

Your third question was how long TRW must continue to have replacement parts available for the Child Love Seat. There is no requirement in Standard No. 213 or any of our other regulations that child restraint manufacturers make replacement parts available for any child restraint. Since, your company was never required to make replacement parts available, it is free to stop offering replacement parts for Child Love Seats whenever you choose.

You should, however, be aware of your statutory responsibility to remedy any safety-related defects or noncompliances with the requirements of Standard No. 213. If either your company or this agency determines that the Child Love Seat contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with Standard No. 213, section 154 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(l)) requires you to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the purchaser. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) specifies that such remedy shall consist of either:

(1) Repairing the Child Love Seats so that they no longer have the defect or failure to comply; or

(2) Replacing the Child Love Seats with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint that does not have such defect or failure to comply.

Section 154 (a)(4) limits your obligation to remedy without charge to those Child Love Seats purchased by the first purchaser not more than 8 years before the determination is safe that those products contain a safety-related defect or failure to comply with Standard No. 213.

If a determination of a safety-related defect or noncompliance were made with respect to the Child Love Seats, your company's ability to exercise its statutory right to repair, rather than replace, such seats would be affected by the availability of replacement parts with which to make such repairs. You may wish to consider this when deciding how long your company will continue to have replacement parts available for Child Love Seats.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 2, 1985

Legal Office Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NHSTA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division is the manufacturer of the Child Love Seat and per your recent ruling we will discontinue the manufacturing of this seat on August 12, 1986.

TRW distributes the Child Love Seat through Century Products in the D.S. and Alkot Industries is Canada. We also distribute the Child Love Seat through GM, Honda, Accura, Ford of Canada, AMC and Chrysler.

TRW is concerned that after August 12, 1986 are our distributors able to sell this product? (delete their inventory) Where is the liability placed? How long must TRW continue to have replacement parts?

Any assistance in answering or other pertinent information relating to the above questions are appreciated and I look forward to your earliest response.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

R. A. Ziomek Sales Representative

KAZ/lw

ID: 86-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gary D. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Clark John Deere Tractor Works P.O. Box 3500 Waterloo, Iowa 50704-3500

Dear Mr. Clark:

This responds to your letter dated February 27, 1986, concerning your projected sale of a strip chassis for the class A motor home industry. The identifying information submitted in your letter is being referred to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards which keeps records of manufacturer identification in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566.

Under S114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's documents and test data, which form the basis for this certification, be submitted unless requested by the agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

27 Feb. 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Deere and Company will soon begin marketing a strip chassis suitable for the class A motor home industry. The chassis are designed for GVWRs of 16,000# and 18,000#. As an incomplete vehicle manufacture, we are aware of requirement testing such as FMVSS 105 and 124 and fuel emission testing by EPA and CARB.

I am uncertain as to our responsibility to present documentation to your office. Until word is received from you to do otherwise, we will document the FMVSS 105 and 124 tests internally. These documents and test data will be kept i our records department and will be made available upon written request from your office.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Clark O.E.M. Engineering (319/292-7162)

ID: 86-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Horton Imperial Comfort Corporation P.O. Box 28367 Detroit, MI 48228

Dear Mr. Horton:

This is in response to your letter asking for our agency to approve a safety belt comfort adjuster you wish to sell. The literature you enclosed with your letter shows that the device is a strap with a clamp on each end. One end of the device can be clamped on the lap portion of a lap/shoulder belt and the other end clamped on the shoulder portion of the belt. By adjusting the strap, a person can reposition the shoulder belt away from his or her neck and apparently can introduce slack into the belt as well. I hope the following information will explain how our regulations affect your device.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not directly covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

The agency is also concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use your product to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt or reposition the shoulder belt too close to the edge of a person's shoulder and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the belt. The instructions you provide with your device do not warn users about the risks associated with introducing excessive slack or incorrectly repositioning the safety belt. We encourage you to provide more detailed guidance about the proper use of your device.

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

Sincerely:

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

To whom it may concern:

Imperial Comfort Corp. are asking if you would provide the necessary D.O.T. approval for this device which we have enclosed for you;

Please find in this package the information which we have provided for this devices approval.

P. Please reply to our application as soon as you possibly can.

Thank you,

Imperial Comfort Corp.

Enclosed

gdh

PACKAGE The seat belt comfort adjuster is made as following: It is a small elastic belt which has a clasp on each end and a slip lock adjustable buckle, which adjust the length.

The seat belt comfort adjuster operate as such: One end of the seat belt comfort adjuster is clapped to the cross waist belt of the seat belt. Then clasp the remaining loose end to the chest cross belt. Now you can adjust the cross harness chest belt from the neck and also relieve some of the pressure off the chest which the harness apply, to suit your comfort.

Imperial Comfort Corp.

gdh

If further information needed please contact us at (313) 273-2793.

ID: 86-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86 EST

FROM: SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: The school bus industry is quite possibly the most safety conscious industry in the nation, and properly so. Newspaper accounts of school bus accidents evoke a greater sense of tragic loss amongst readers -- no matter how far away the accident -- than most disasters involving greater numbers. Our culture assigns greater priority to the lives of its children than to the rest of us. Thus, any measures that enhance the safety of school bus passengers deserve serious attention, and they usually get it.

That was the case with the transportation director of a school district in Iowa when he happened on some literature which described a bizarre-sounding, after-purchase procedure for slashing tires. Jerry Williams puzzled about the procedure (called "siping") for a while, checked around with other companies which slashed their tires, and persuaded the business manager of the Linn-Mar Community School District to buy a siping machine.

That was in 1978. Williams says, "we've been very happy with it ever since."

The siping machine Jerry Williams uses can put any cut in virtually any kind of tire siped, new or used, as long as it has 5/32" tread left. Anyone can be trained to use the machine in 10 or 15 minutes, and the machine allows an operator to make cuts of different depths, as required by the amount of tread left on tire. Cuts may be on the diagonal or straight across the tire, and the width between them may be varied. The cutting blades on this particular sipe are cooled by a spray-miser which cost about five dollars, and are good for 80 or 90 tires. Williams sharpens his blades after 20 tires -- "I touch them up," as he puts it.

Siping has been around for a long time, but only in the last decade or so has there been a machine which makes the tiny cuts quickly, effectively and inexpensively. Williams reports that "it takes two hours to sipe the six tires on my buses, from the time the bus comes in until it's turned loose. That's with a crew of two people."

The Linn-Mar School District's siping machine is manufactured by the Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving Company of Minnetonka, Minnesota.

In Missoula, Montana, in the mountainous western part of the state, Bob Beach's school bus fleet of 70 buses travels 800,000 miles per year, all on siped tires. Before the Saf-Tee Siper was invented, Beach used to cut his tires by hand, with a knife, but it was a costly and ragged procedure.

With the machine-made cuts, according to Beach, the hundreds of sharp little edges created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, and "this means the tire grips the road surface better, making braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He adds, "you also get much better traction spin for starts."

The Linn-Mar School District used to stud their tires for winter road conditions, but siping has eliminated the need for studs and double tire inventories.

According to Williams, Linn-Mar first siped its school bus tires in the dead winter. Roads were covered with snow and ice. As an experiment, he mentioned to some drivers that their tires had been siped, but said nothing to the others. "When the latter came back in the afternoon," he continued, "the drivers said "What did you do to his bus? The front end didn't slide around the corners like it did in the past, and the stopping distance is shorter. And it's getting better traction on take-off."

In Montana, Bob Beach used to run his siped tire only in the winter, but when he began using them year-round, he discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains.

"The siped tread-elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away. This minimizes hydroplaning. In fact, it usually eliminates hydroplaning altogether."

Bill Dufor, who operates a fleet of 165 school buses in Prospect, Connecticut, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, agrees with Beach. "One of the reasons we've got a siping machine is because of wet roads. We feel a lot more comfortable with them, especially with some re-caps which are noted for being a little bit slick on wet roads. Siped tires give you that much more comfort and reliability. We think it does a good job on wet roads."

You might reasonably think that tire life would be reduced by siping; tire engineers though so too, a couple of decades ago. To their surprise, however, they found that tire life increased, and for a very simple reason: siped tires run cooler. The cuts help dissipate heat. Siped tires are used by school bus fleets, highway patrol cars, over-the-road truckers, transit companies and thousands of passenger car owners. In all cases, tires run cooler, and some users report increases in tire life from 15 to 20 percent. That reduces operating costs, and is of obvious significance for public sector fleet owners, like school districts.

The Linn-Mar School District runs siped highway tires on the front end and siped traction tires on the rear -- "Michelins, Goodyears, Fire-stones," according to Williams. The bottom line about siping tires? In Jerry Williams' words, "Everybody feels safer."

That is the case with Bob Beach and Paul Dufour, as well. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat.

As Bob Beach puts it, "increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

ID: 86-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/86

FROM: DAVID M. CIMA

TO: LEGAL COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: VISIBLE DISPLAY TO AUTOMOBILE DRIVER OF STATUS OF TRANSMISSION(PARK, REVERSE, NEUTRAL, DRIVE, LOW . . . ALSO KNOWN AS "PRNDL INDICATOR" IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/30/86 EST, TO DAVID M.CIMA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (3) STANDARD 102

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I have been told that STANDARD for stipulates that when a driver gets behind the wheel the "setting" of the transmission at that time will be visibly evident before he puts the key into the ignition.

Normally, there is a mechanical linkage to a "needle" that gives the indication. But with newer technologies like light emitting diodes and liquid crystal displays, etc., that same indication can be given in the instrument cluster, perhaps even more clearly than with traditional approaches.

Some auto manufacturers are considering (or may already have done) putting a weight switch in the seat which would be activated when the driver sits down and turn on a lighted PRNDL display.

I, on the other hand, am working with another technology that would sense the driver's movement as he slid into the seat(by sensing his infrared radiation) and activate the display.

But, and this is the reason for my writing to you, using the type of infrared sensor that is on the market today, I would get only one electronic "blip" when the driver entered. Then the display would be activated with a simple timer that would keep it lit for some predetermined period, say 5 minutes. However, if the driver entered his car with his lunch and spent 20 minutes eating and then proceeded to insert key and drive away, the PRNDL indicator would have been off 15 minutes before the man started his car.

As an extreme case, someone goes to a drive-in movie and may be in the same spot for 2 hours before restarting their car.

In short, does the law say that the PRNDL indicator must be visible to the driver when he enters the car? Or must it be visible whenever anyone is behind the wheel? (Naturally, in the case of someone in the car with the engine idling, the indicator would be lit.)

If the regulation states that the indicator must be "visible" no matter what the situation or the duration of time the person is behind the wheel, I still may be able to make the infrared approach work--but it will be much more difficult.

As you well know, I would be foolish to work on or offer something that didn't meet the letter of the law--and no manufacturer would accept it anyways. Thus I would appreciate whatever clarification of the situation that you could give me.

I truly appreciate your efforts.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Henry A. Gorry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Henry A. Gorry Guardian Industries 43043 West Nine Mile Road Northville, Michigan 48167

Dear Mr. Gorry:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Edward Jettner, which was referred to my office for reply. You asked a number of questions about the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

You are correct in your understanding that S6.2 of the standard requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of its glazing material which is designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper by placing the marks required by S6.1 of the standard on the glazing and adding the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. You are also correct that pursuant to S6.5, each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper must place the marks required by S6.1 on the glazing and certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Those persons do not have to add the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark to the glazing.

You asked why the standard draws a distinction between glazing materials which are designed as a component of a specific vehicle and glazing materials which are cut from a section of another item of glazing material. As explained by the agency in an interpretation letter of June 10, 1975, to the California Highway Patrol, NHTSA's purpose in structuring the marking requirements in this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for compliance, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In an interpretation letter of July 13, 1976, to DuPont, the agency further explained that since issuance of the certification requirements in 1967, those requirements have become more widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the "traceability" of glazing materials for enforcement purposes. NHTSA also said that it would no longer prohibit the use of the "DOT" symbol and the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the distributor or manufacturer.

You asked if the term "manufacturer" used in S6.4 and S6.5 of the standard is meant to mean a "prime glazing manufacturer." Section 571.3 of our regulations provides that terms defined in section 102 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Act. Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Thus, the term "manufacturer" used in S6.4 and S6.5 includes both a prime glazing manufacturer and a person that assemblies or manufactures vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

You also asked about the definition of the term "distributor." As discussed above, section 571.3 provides that terms defined in section 102 of the Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Act. Section 102(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "distributor" as "any person primarily engaged in the sale and distribution of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." You said that you are confused about the need to distinguish between manufacturers and distributors. The purpose of the distinction was to make sure that commercial sellers who cut glazing for use in motor vehicles, but do not otherwise perform a manufacturing process on the glazing, have to comply with the marking and certification requirements. You are correct that a prime glazing manufacturer may also be a distributor; likewise there are distributors who are not prime glazing manufacturers.

You also asked why the term "camper" is distinguished from the term "motor vehicle" in S6 of Standard No. 205. As mentioned previously, Section 571.3 of our regulations provides that terms defined in the Vehicle Safety Act that are used in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have the statutory definition assigned to them by the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as, in part, "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power...." As a camper has no independent mechanical power and is not drawn, it would not be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle". Thus, it has necessary to specifically define the term "camper" in S4 of Standard No. 205 to make clear that a camper, which is an item of motor vehicle equipment, is covered by Standard No. 205.

Finally, you asked why do S6.2, S6.4, and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 apply to motor vehicles and campers, while S6.3 refers only to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As discussed previously, a camper is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment and thus the requirements of S6.3 would also apply to glazing made by a prime glazing manufacturer for use in a camper. Since the term "item of motor vehicle equipment" is a more encompassing classification than camper, the requirements of S6.3 apply to other pieces of equipment, such as wind deflectors, made by prime glazing manufacturers.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 6, 1986

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Edward Jettner Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205

Reference: 'Certification and Marking'

Dear Ed:

Please forgive this imposition. Possibly, at your very own convenience, you might be so kind as to accommodate my office by directing this enquiry to the appropriate NHTSA appointment for consideration.

Herein, Guardian Industries Corp. respectfully solicits from NHTSA clarification of certain parts of the 'Certification and Marketing" requirements currently set-forth at the subject Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - concerning the requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

From the reading of Section S6.2 of the subject safety standard, it is the understanding of my office each piece of glazing material, to which the safety standard applies, which is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper, is to be certified pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 through the inclusion, in addition to other marks, of a "DOT" symbol suffixed by a manufacturer's code mark: and that a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material, to which the safety standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, is required to mark and certify the material in accordance with Section 6 of ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 respectively - See Section S6.4 and S6.5 of the safety standard.

My office, on behalf of Guardian Industries Corp. its affiliate and subsidiary Companies, Submits the following question for NHTSA's Consideration:

a. Whilst section S6.2 of the safety Standard obligates a prime glazing material manufacturer certify each piece of glazing material designed as a Component of a specific vehicle in the prescribed manner, sections S6.4 and S6.5 of the safety standard requires marking and certification of those parts cut from a section of glazing material pursuant to Section 6 of ANS Z26 and section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Of consequence, does this mean parts cut from a Section of glazing material, for use in a motor vehicle or camper need not be marked with a "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark.

Why the distinction between glazing material parts designed as a Component of a specific vehicle from those parts cut from a section of glazing material, when it may be argued parts cut from a section are as much intended for specific motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment as are parts designed as a Component of any specific motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.

Additionally, it would be most greatly appreciated if NHTSA might see fit to advise my office in respect to the following:

a. It is presumed 'Manufacturer', as employed as Section S6.4 and Section S6.5 of the safety standard, is a term used to describe one whose activities correspond with those attributed to a prime glazing material manufacturer - See S6.l of the safety standard.

b. It appears the Safety standard does not furnish a definition describing the activities of a 'Distributor'. May it be presumed a distributor is a party engaged in the Commercial disposition of glazing materials, to which the safety Standard applies, as well as being one who also cuts a section of glazing material for use in motor vehicles and Campers.

I am a trifle confused as to the need to distinguish manufacturers and distributors in the safety standard. Is not the act of cutting a glazing material an inherent part of the fabrication process - an activity attributed, at Section S6.1, of the safety standard, to the prime glazing material manufacturer.

Further, may a prime glazing material manufacturer not only fabricate, laminate, temper and cut but also distribute in commerce glazing materials for motor vehicle and Camper use.

c. Why is camper, throughout most of Section 6, singled-out from motor vehicle when the definitions of a motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment, at Section S4 of the safety standard, include the term camper.

d. Why do Sections S6.2/S6.4/S6.5 of the safety standard apply to motor vehicles and campers whilst Section S6.3 refers to motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Very truly,

GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP.

Henry A. Gorry Certifications & Standards Manager

HAG:jep