ID: nht87-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Heath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Heath Manager, Compliance Department Panasonic Matsushita Technology Group One Panasonic Way

Dear Mr. Heath:

This responds to your letter asking whether the installation of television receivers, in passenger cars and buses, is permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a consumer products sales company, you indicated that you are considering four proposals: (1) a small television receiver mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral, (2) a small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the rear seat only, (3) a television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear, and (4) a large-screen projection television or television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus.

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, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Pact 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your television receivers are installed in used vehicles, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment hive responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

You asked, by way of example, whether your second proposal would be acceptable provided that it meets the standards for crash protection and windshield intrusion. In order to determine how installation of your television receivers could affect the compliance of vehicles with safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those for crash protection and windshield intrusion. We note that another standard that might be relevant, particularly with respect to your first proposal, is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which provides general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Inquiry and Request for Clarification of Regulations for Use of Broadcast Television Receivers in Automobiles and Buses

Dear Ms. Jones:

Panasonic Company, a consumer products sales company, is investigating the potential sales of broadcast television receivers for installation into automobiles and buses. The following proposals are under consideration at the present time, and we are seeking guidance as to the acceptability and feasibility of these proposals:

1) Small television screen mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral. The use of a specially-designed relay is necessary upon installation of the television receiver. (See attachment 1)

2) Small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the seat only. (See attachment 2)

3) Television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear. (See attachment 3)

4) Large-screen projection television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus. (See attachment 4 and 5)

Each of the four (4) proposals should be considered separately for conditions of acceptability and/or prohibition within the NHTSA regulatory standards activity.

The results of a 1984 Electronics Industry Association (EIA) state survey indicated that only one (1) state, Rhode Island, prohibits televisions in automobiles. Thirty-seven (37) states restrict its use while the automobile is in motion. The remainder have no laws. The only other federal regulation of which we are aware is the Federal Highway Administration's requirement for large commercial trucks (49 CFR 393.88) where the television viewing screen is required to be located to the rear of the driver, and control be prohibited while the driver is in his seat.

Therefore, Panasonic Company seeks your guidance, interpretation, and suggestions regarding the investigation of the four proposals stated above. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Heath Manager Compliance Dept.

RJH/ab Attachments cc: L.E. Levine/Legal Div.

ID: nht87-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ching-Hsien Huang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ching-Hsien Huang Branch Chief Structural Analysis Department Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 33099 Republic of China

Dear Mr. Huang:

Thank you for your letter of May 4, 1987, asking several questions about Standard No. 210, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether Standard No. 216 is still in effect. The answer is yes.

You also asked whether Standard No. 216 can be substituted for the rollover test contained in the first, second, or third option of Standard No. 208. - The answer is that compliance with the roof crush resistance requirements of Standard No. 216 cannot b e substituted for compliance with the rollover test of Standard No. 208.

I would like to clarify the applicability of the rollover test requirement of Standard No. 208 for you. The only rollover test contained in Standard No. 208 is found in 54.1.2.1 of the standard. A vehicle is subject to the test only if the vehicle's manu facturer chooses to meet it instead of an alternative requirement. 54.1. 2. l(a)- provides that a manufacturer has to meet the dynamic occupant protection requirements by automatic means in a frontal/angular crash test. In addition, a manufacturer must m eet 54.1.2.1(c). 54.1.2.1 (c ) provides a manufacturer with two options. A manufacturer can either meet the requirements of 54.1.2.1 (c)(l) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a literal crash test and a rollover crash test or a ma nufacturer can meet the requirements of 54. 1. 2.1 (c) ( 2) and provide a manual lap or a manual lap/shoulder below at each front designated seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to meet 54.1.2.1 (c) ( 2), the vehicle must comply with 54.1.2.1(s) a nd provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt unfastened. In addition, the vehicle must provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt fastened.

I hope this answers your questions, if you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION MAY 4, 1987

DEAR SIR,

WE ARE THE ENGINEERING CENTER OF YUE LOONG MOTOR COMPANY IN TAIWAN. PLEASE REPLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (1) HAD STANDARD NO. 216, ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE--PASSENGER CARS, BEEN REVOKED AFTER AUGUST 15, 1977)

(2) IF THE ANSWER OF (1) IS NO, CAN STANDARD NO. 216 BE A SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ROLLOVER TEST REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD OPTION OF STANDARD NO. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, NOWADAYS?

YOUR HELP WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

SINCERELY YOURS,

CHING-HSIEN HUANG BRANCH CHIEF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DEPT.

ID: nht87-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. T. Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. L. T. Mitchell, Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, L.P. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter to me regarding the questions you share with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) about paragraph @5.1. 2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our respons e. As you know, your letter has supplemented by information we received in a letter from Mr. Harry Gough of the DMV. We have also incorporated into your inquiry information you provided on February 26 to Mr. Paliokas of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety C ompliance concerning the dimensions of the seat back in question. I regret the delay in this response.

The first question you ask is whether @5.1.2 applies to the last row "davenport" type seat found in a rear engine school bus. The answer is yes. By its terms, @5.1.2 applies to "each school bus passenger seat" and makes no exception for the rearmost seat . The second question you ask relates to the concerns you and the DMV have about the requirements in @5.1.2 for seat back surface area. Because Connecticut prohibits the top of rear divan seats to be higher than the lower edge of rear emergency windows, th e state wishes to reduce the height of the seat back on a seat located in the last row of the school bus and reduce the width of the seat cushion (to 29 inches) by use of "spacers." You enclosed a diagram of the seating design to illustrate how the propo sal compares with your standard school bus seat and called the new seat "cushion 2" and the area of its seat back "area 2. " The DMV sent us a diagram showing the location of the spacers on cushion 2.

You believe that the DMV's desired seat back design would not comply with Standard No. 222 and ask us whether you have made a correct determination. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 222 regulates the height and surface area of seat backs on school buses. It states:

Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 20 inches above the s eating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20.

In order to ascertain the compliance with @5.1.2 of the seat back in question, the area of the seat back (in the front projected view) between the two horizontal planes referenced in @5.1.2 is calculated. To calculate this, dimensions are needed for the height of the seat back above the seating reference point (SRP) and the width of the seat back. The information you provided to Mr. Paliokas concerned the SRP and seat back height. According to that information and the diagram you enclosed, the seat back for cushion 2 is five inches lower than your standard school bus seat back. Thus, the height above the SRP of the seat back for cushion 2 is approximately 14.25 inches.

As to the width of the seat back, the question arises whether it should be considered to be 29 or 39 inches wide. While the seat back appears to be 39 inches wide in your illustration, the "spacers" located on each end of the seat in front of the seat ba ck reduce the seat width to 29 inches.

The use of the spacers brings up two related issues. First, are they adequate in rendering portions of the bench seat inappropriate for use as seating surface areas? You as the manufacturer must make a good faith determination of their adequacy. We do no t have enough information at this time to answer this question: however, we will assume for the purposes of this discussion that the answer is yes.

Second, assuming that the spacers are adequate in making portions of the bench seat unlikely to be used for seating, should the surface of the seat back behind the spacers be considered part of cushion 2's seat back surface area for purposes of @5. 1.2? We believe the answer to this question is no. Since non-seating areas are not required to be compartmentalized between high seat backs or restraining barriers, we do not consider portions of a seat back behind non-seating positions as part of the seat ba ck surf ace area required by @5.1.2 to be provided for school bus seats. Hence, if the spacers render cushion 2 into a 29 inch seat, we conclude that the width of the corresponding seat back is 29 inches.

Under @5. 1.2, the front surface area of the seat back between the two referenced planes must be not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20. The required surface area for a seat back of a 29 inch bench seat thus must be a t least 522 square inches. Since the seat back for cushion 2 has a height above the SRP of 14.25 inches and a width of 29 inches, its area is only 413.25 square inches. Therefore, the seat back does not meet @5. 1.2 of Standard No. 222.

In his letter to us, Mr. Gough argues that the proposed design would not violate the purpose of Standard No. 222 since the seat back in question would be located in the rear of the school bus and no person would be sitting or standing behind it. We canno t accept this argument. Paragraph 52 of Standard No. 222 states: "The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers." In accordance with this intent, Standard No. 222 requires school buses to comply with "compartmentalization" requirements to provide passenger crash protection. To achieve the benefits of compartmentalization, it i s important that passengers be protected and confined in the event of a crash within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. The seat back area required by @5.1.2 is necessary, therefore, not only to provide protection to passengers seated behind the seat back, but also to ensure that the protective compartment is provided for occupants of the seat.

I hope this letter is helpful. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Gough for his Information. Please contact my office if you or he have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 17, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: FMVSS #222 Section @5.1.2 - Seat Back Height and Surface Area.

Dear Ms. Jones:

One of our customers has requested an interpretation of FMVSS #222 @5.1.2 - "Seat Back Height and Surface Area".

1)Does @5.1.2 apply to the last row "Davenport" type seat that is found in a rear engine school bus?

2) The Davenport seat back width is 90 inches. Each cushion is 39" wide. If the answer to question number 1 is yes, what seat backs surface area may be used to meet the requirements of @5.1.2 for the total cushion width?

The enclosed illustration shows area number 1 and 2 respectively located above cushion number 1 and 2. Thomas Built Buses interprets @5.1.2 to mean that area 1 must meet the area requirement of @5.1.2 for cushion 1. Thus area 2 with its reduce seat back height does not meet @5.1.2 for cushion 2. Is the Thomas interpretation correct?

Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

L. T. MITCHELL, Specification Engineer

LTH/jw

Enclosure

cc: Matt Mathieson Ron Marion Howard Smith, Connecticutt Distributor

ID: nht87-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/16/86 TO CARL CLARK -- NHTSA FROM JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Czarnowski:

In September 1986, you sent information concerning your Emergency Air Reserve System (EARS) to Dr. Carl Clark of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Research and Development. According to your letter, EARS is a separ ate high-pressure system intended to provide an emergency vehicle with enough air volume and pressure to charge the vehicle's integral system to operating pressure. You stated that the system does not violate the integrity of the vehicle's system, since check-valves, a relief valve and one-way regulator are present.

Later, in February 1987, you asked Dr. Clark for information concerning whether EARS is permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This letter responds to that request.

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, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipme nt comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering auxiliary devices for the quick pressurizing of air brake systems. However, since your device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

One issue we have examined is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements, e.g., those for

reservoir strength. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hose and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

It is our opinion that your device is not considered part of the braking system, so long as the device is separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such a way that the main braking system will not be affected by a leakage failu re in the device. Thus, since your letter indicates that such a check valve is provided, your device itself would not be subject to the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121. This opinion is limited to the specific factual situation raised by your letter. We note that the device is not intended to replace a vehicle's normal braking system but instead to provide auxiliary air pressure for certain emergency situations. We also note that the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121 were not writt en to cover the high air pressures used in your system.

If the device is added to a previously certified 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 con tinues 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 be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any dev ice or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act.

In response to a request you made to Dr. Clark, Edward Glancy of my staff previously sent a general information sheet to your attorney, Ralph Rath, Esq. The information sheet identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affect ing motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. We are also sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Rath.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BRUCE W. SMITH -- PRESIDENT UNIT CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/12/87 TO JONES; FROM BRUCE W. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency's "recommendation" on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety stan dard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor veh icle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.

This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperat ive ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..."

There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints in compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of St andard No. 213 specifies: "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302." I have also enclosed a copy of

2 Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injur ies during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair busi ness installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108.

Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flamma bility resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative.

Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 141 1-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of th e defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to hear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight year s before the notification campaign.

I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

3

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Andrew G. Baird -- Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/15/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to W. Alex Cantrell (Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew G. Baird, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P.O. Box 968 North Platte, NE 69101

This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automatic starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control Systems, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your l etter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they do not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously w arned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.

I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluate the safety of your device.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY NHTSA 07-87 March 13, 1987 Contact: Barry McCahill Tel.: (202) 366-955)

SAFETY AGENCY WARMS MOTORISTS TO AVOID LONG ENGINE WARM-UPS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today cautioned motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period could lead to a fire.

The safety agency explained that when an engine is cold, most vehicles equipped with a carburetor will idle fast while the choke is on until the operator depresses the accelerator pedal to return the idle to normal. If the operator neglects to do this, o r is away from the vehicle, the engine may operate too long with the choke on, the catalytic converter could overheat and a fire could result. Due to vehicle differences, NHTSA suggests that drivers should consult their owner's manual to determine how lo ng the manufacturer advises that an engine can be idled safely.

"Fortunately, these fires are rare events," according to NHTSA Administrator Diane K. Steed. "But incidents have been reported to us, typically when a car is left idling and the operator goes back into the house while it warms up. Under no circumstances, even in warm weather, should a car be left unattended with the engine running."

Steed urged motorists to follow carefully the manufacturer's warm-up procedure. In addition, these safety precautions should be followed:

o The engine should not be running while someone is clearing the windshield or windows of frost, snow or dew.

o If, after a brief warm-up, the vehicle hesitates or stalls, have it serviced rather than opting for a longer warm-up period.

o Before leaving any vehicle, turn off the ignition and set the parking brake. If the vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission also, make sure the gear selector is in the "park" position.

Motorists who experience a fire associated with engine warm-up, or any other safety-related motor vehicle problem, are urged to call NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline on (800) 424-9393.

December 15, 1968

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway & Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th, S.W. Washington' D.C. 20590 NOA-30

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed a diagram and explanation of a Remote Automatic Starting System for motor vehicles. Please review and notify me if there are any problems with this system under Federal Regulations or Statutes.

I have spoken to Mr. Kenneth Rutland of N.H.T.S.A. about this device and he referred me to your office. From our conversation I feel that he will probably do the review of the system.

If you have any questions, please contact either myself or the inventor, Mr. Dale Gleason at 308-532-8466.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ANDREW G. BAIRD, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation

/mjh Encl. cc. Dale Gleason Rex Martin, NE Tech. Assistance Center

REMOTE FREQUENCY CENTER, Similar to a Garage Door Opener

The Signal receiver activates a number one relay, and as soon as that is activated it puts juice to the ignition side of the coil or the electronic module, in case of electronic ignition. . . . Also supplies power to an electric switch that is closed unt il the rpm reaches 500 rpm. The juice then goes to a timer, starts a timer sequence that activates the glow plugs for 30 sec., and after 30 sec. it activates a number 3 relay, which throws juice to the starter solonoid and also to a throttle solonoid. Th e throttle solonoid cracks the throttle open one-third throttle and lets the automatic choke close. . . . . Same time we're crankin' the engine. As soon as the engine starts, the rpm reaches 500 rpm the electric switch closes, shutin' off the power to th e timer, which sets off power to the starter solonoid and throttle lever. The throttle goes back into normal position of high-idle and choke that's already on the car. In case of a No-start the timer will activate starter for 15 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, and then the whole cycle will start over. . . . . glow plugs, starter & throttle lever.

We have a master toggle switch to are the number 1 relay, which is turned on after you park your car that arms the number 1 relay, and when you hit your remote button in the morning, you can start the machine from inside the house, or wherever you want t o be.

We are going to hook it up on the neutral side of the safety switch so the unit would have to be in Park or Neutral before it would activate the starter.

Until the key is in place and release the steering column the car cannot be placed in gear. The system does not bypass the locking mechanism.

What we're doin' is starting the car, defrosting the windows , warming the engine up, and stop some people from driving while looking through a little three inch hole cuz they're too lazy to scrape the windows! A safety precaution. Also precludes cold en gine stalls.

The car must be "in tune", because if you have a car that you have to go out there an pump the throttle, this is not going to work... and it will not work if the car is sittin' out in 20o below 0 weather either, unless the car is well "in-tune". But we a re not bypassing any neutral safety switches, and will absolutely NOT start the car, if the car is in gear! At this time it is for automatic transmissions only. . . .We have not figured out a way to put it on a standard transmission that could accidently be started in gear. All the automatics do have a neutral safety switch.

ID: nht87-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takashi Shimoda -- Chief of Quality Assurance Section, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. 1118, Sazuchi, Besso-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

This responds to your letter to our office asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

In your letter, you explain that your company plans to export brake hose assemblies to the United States that are made of resin and other materials. You first ask whether Standard No. 106 applies "equally" to all brake hoses and assemblies regardless of the materials used in their manufacture. Your understanding is correct. Brake hoses and brake hose assemblies may be made from any material as long as they can meet all applicable performance requirements of the standard.

Your second question concerns the standard's whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 and the whip resistance test of S6.3, You ask for confirmation that cracks in hose specimen are acceptable under S5.3.3 provided that there is no leakage from the hose assembly. Your understanding is correct. S5.3.3 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours (S6.3)." The standard defines "rupture" as "any failure that results in separation of a brake hose from its end fitting or in leakage." The determining factor for the whip resistance requirement is thus the pressure maintained by the system. If there is no pressure loss in the system, the brake hose assembly meets S5.3.3, regardless of the presence of cracks in the hose specimen. Please note, however, that although cracks in themselves do not constitute a failure of S5.3.3, the development of cracks caused by exposure to ozone is important for the ozone resistance requirement of S5.3.10.

Since you are planning to import your products into the United States, I am enclosing copies to two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products into this country.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(procedural rules 49 CFR Part 566 and Part 551) omitted

Dear Sir:

Re: Inquiry on FMVSS No. 106 - Brake Hose

We are a manufacturer of brake hoses, and are registered at NHTSA with a maker identification code "NCRN".

Now, we are planning to export to the U.S. brake hose assemblies made of resin which are individually built into motor cycles.

We are aware that the brake hose assemblies are subject to control under FMVSS No. 106.

In this connection, we ask you a few questions on interpretations of FMVSS No. 106.

Question 1. FMVSS No. 106 provides for no regulations on the materials used. We interpret it to equally apply, whether the material is rubber or resin. Is this understanding justifiable?

For the inner tubes and outer covers of the brake hoses we are now manufacturing, we are using rubber.

But under a future plan, we schedule to use nylon for the inner tubes, and thermoplastic polyester resin for the outer covers.

Question 2. On whip resistance:

The standard sets forth the requirement s follows;

A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture, when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.

In this test, the time elapsed before a hose assembly, while being tested, has ruptured, causing water inside to leak out, is recorded, to make the judgment on its whip resistance.

If even when cracks have developed which have not lead to leakage from the hose which is under testing, the hose shows no evidence of leakage, while the tester is running, then, we judge this hose acceptable. Is this judgment right?

Thanking you for your early answer.

Very sincerely yours,

Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

ID: nht87-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Albert Schwarz -- Senior engineer, Imperial Clevite Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Terry E. Teeter (Std. 106)

TEXT:

Mr. Albert Schwarz Senior Engineer, Product Development Imperial Clevite Inc. Imperial Eastman Division 6300 W. Howard Street Chicago, IL 60648-3492

This responds to your January 12, 1987 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You ask whether the standard applies to flexible conduits (i.e., hoses and plastic tubing) used to trans mit air pressure to accessories such as horns and windshield wipers. The answer to your question is yes, if a failure of such a conduit result; in a loss of air pressure in the brake system.

On August 3, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation of Standard No. 106 to Mr. Terry Teeter of the Eaton Corporation, who asked the same question you did about the applicability of the standard to conduits used for accessories. Our letter explains that fle xible hoses (and tubing) connected to accessories are "brake hoses" and subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes--i.e., a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressur e in the brake system. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Teeter for your information.

I understand that Ms. Hom of my staff sent you a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA on April 17, 1986, which terminated rulemaking on whether the air brake hose tensile requirement of Standard No. 106 should be reduced for hoses typically used for accessories. NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking because the agency believed that it would be in the interest of safety for the smaller-diameter hoses to comply with current requirements of the standard. Since you might want to review this not ice in light of the information provided you in this letter, I have enclosed a duplicate copy for your convenience.

You also ask whether there are requirements other than those included in Standard No. 106 that must be met by accessory lines. The answer to your question is no. The air brake hoses you intend to use in accessory lines need comply only with Standard No. 106 to be manufactured and sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(4/17/86 Federal Register notice of termination of rulemaking, 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 85-04, Notice 2) omitted.

Januxary 12, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today, during a conversation with Ms. Dierdra Hom, I raised a question which she has suggested that I pass along to you for comment.

This question involves a vehicle equipped with an air brake system which is within the jurisdiction of DOT 106-74. When such a vehicle also uses the compressed air system to power accessory non-brake equipment, such as horns or windshield wipers, must th e hoses and or plastic tubing, along with their associated couplings, also meet the requirements of DOT 106? Are their other requirements which must also be met by non-safety-related accessories which may also be powered by, and therefore connected to th e compressed air system?

I look forward to receiving your comment.

Yours truly,

Albert Schwarz

Senior Engineer, Product Development

ID: nht87-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Clarence M. Ditlow III, Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has rece ntly issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

With the 1987 model year less than a month away, automobile dealers will soon be selling large numbers of vehicles equipped with passive restraints. Unfortunately, while the passive restraint requirement has the potential for saving thousands 0f lives an nually, these benefits will not be realized if dealerships mock the standard by disconnecting the automatic seat belts offered by some manufacturers.

The cumbersome and easily detached automatic belts offered by General Motors, for example, will actually encourage disconnection by dealerships and consumers. The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor convenientl y rolling the loose belt up into the retractor. GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed.

Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given that other auto companies will have far superior belts on their 1987 models. Ford, Nissan and Toyota will all use motorized passive belts with demonstrat ed consumer acceptance. For the past ten model years, Volkswagon has sold an automatic belt that is so easy to use consumers don't disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard ride r" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard." The NHTSA has previously ruled this section does not prohibit dealers from disconnecting an, automatic seat belt to demonstrate the emergency release mechanism. However, this section clearly prohibits dealers from disconnecting and disablin g automatic seat belts in all other circumstances. If they do so, they are liable for a $1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act.

The temporary disconnection of an automatic belts for the purpose of demonstrating the emergency release mechanism is a separate and unique activity easily distinguishable from having display models with disconnected automatic belts sitting on the showro om floor. The same is true of allowing vehicles to be test driven with disconnected belts, or delivered to purchasers with detached automatic belts. These practices have no safety benefit and serve only to encourage consumer disuse or automatic belts, th ereby undercutting their unique contribution of automatic belts to occupant protection.

Accordingly, the Center for Auto Safety petitions the NHTSA to issue, prior "to the beginning or the 1987 model year, an interpretive legal opinion of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act stating it is illegal for dealers to: (1) display 1987 models with disconnected automatic seat belts on the showroom floor or on the dealership lot, (2) conduct test drives with automatic belts disconnected, and (3) deliver 1987 models at the time of purchase with automatic belts disconnecte d. NHTSA is also requested to rule that dealers who so violate Section 108 by displaying and selling new cars with automatic belts disconnected are subject to a 81,000 per vehicle fine.

Sincerely, Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: nht87-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-22-87, TO DEIRDRE HOM, FROM JAN PETER KRYGER, OCC-1071

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a r oller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicles equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review

whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.