ID: 1984-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cepcor; Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl Tolf President Cepcor, Inc. P.O. Box 988 St. Charles IL 60174

Dear Mr. Tolf:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a type of load carrier you are considering manufacturing, called "BakPak." Materials provided with your letter indicate that the device is a container which is attached to a vehicle by means of a tow bar. When attached to a vehicle, the device becomes an integral part of the vehicle in the sense that there are no road wheels, and thus it is not a trailer.

By way of background information, the agency does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter and accompanying materials.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a device such as "BakPak." However, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are applicable even in the absence of an applicable safety standard. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible generally that vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under Sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners and provide a remedy free of charge. I would also recommend that you check whether there are any State laws applicab1e to your device.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Wednesday 18 July 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt 202-426-2832 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Enclosed are copies of literature describing the "BakPak", a unique concept in load carriers, which is being successfully manufactured and distributed in the United Kingdom.

Ms. Gayla Barker of your Homewood, Illinois office is sending me copies of Federal Standards 108 and 109.

Mr. Bob Eppes, Motor Vehicle Specialist, of your Kansas City office has been very helpful in advising individuals and/or organizations we should contact before manufacturing the "BakPak" in the United States.

Please advise any Motor Vehicle Compliance Standards that pertain to this product and what steps we should take to insure that our product is in compliance.

Carl Tolf President Enclosures: CT/ct Copy: M. H. Weaver

ID: 1984-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelle S. Benjamin -- Siegel; Mandell & Davidson; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michelle S. Benjamin, Esq. Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C. One Whitehall Street New York, N.Y. 10004

This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 1984, seeking an interpretation that certain chassis manufactured abroad may be imported into the United States by your client providing that they will be exported upon their completion. This interpretation is sought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) and 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iv).

You have informed us that your client wishes to import "various chassis" which "will not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labelled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export." These chassis "will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines, and other special purpose vehicles:..(which) will not be manufactured in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or highways of the United States." You have enclosed a chart with your letter depicting the products your client wishes to import. They appear to be "incomplete motor vehicles" as defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

The fact situation that you present has not arisen before, and is not directly covered by the importation regulations. Two provisions of those regulations, however, appear relevant to your client's problem. Subparagraph (iv) of 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(1) permits the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment items pursuant to the declaration of the importer that "the vehicle or equipment item is intended solely for export, and the vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the container of the equipment item, if any, bears a label or tag to that effect." Subparagraph (ix) would permit permanent importation pursuant to the declaration that "the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle ' as defined in 49 CFR Part 568."

Subparagraph (iv) is not squarely on point as the chassis are not imported "solely" for export, but for sale to final-stage manufacturers for completion of manufacturing operations before export. Subparagraph (ix) is on point, but is intended to cover incomplete vehicles that will be completed for sale in the United States. Accordingly, these vehicles must be labelled as required by 49 CFR 567.5( a) and supplied with the document required by 49 CFR 568.4. These requirements are not relevant for vehicles that will not be operated in the United States, and may be viewed as burdensome to your client. Further, the agency requires compliance of equipment items on imported incomplete vehicles that are themselves the subject of Federal motor vehicle safety standards for equipment, such as tires, glazing, lighting, and brake fluid. Under subparagraph (iv) your client could be considered in violation of the importation regulations if, by chance, a noncomplying vehicle were not exported after its completion. Under subparagraph (ix), however, your client's responsibilities would end at importation (assuming the requirements outlined above were met), and the final-stage manufacturer could affix the label for export as specified in 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) upon completion. Alternatively, if circumstances changed, he could complete the vehicle in a conforming manner, certify it, and sell it in the United States.

Although not squarely on point, the agency would have no objection to importation pursuant to subparagraph (iv) if each declaration (Form HS-7) also contains the notation that the vehicle is being imported solely for completion for export purposes, and provides the name and address of the final-stage manufacturer to whom it will be sold. Alternatively, your client may import the incomplete vehicles pursuant to subparagraph (ix) if it chooses to meet the requirements outlined above.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Re: Importation of Chassis Which Do Not Conform To Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are writing at the suggestion of Mr. Vinson, of your office, who we spoke with approximately three weeks ago concerning our client's contemplated importation into the United States of certain chassis and proper completion of the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's HS Form 7. We believe that the facts and pertinent law discussed below require that our client affirm paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7, which provides that a motor vehicle or equipment item offered for importation under 19 CFR S12.80 "is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled". HS Form 7, 14, citing 19 CFR S12.80(b)(1)(iv).

By this letter, we hereby request that a binding ruling be issued as to whether paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is applicable under the circumstances set forth below.

F A C T S

Our client will purchase and import various chassis from a related company, beginning in August or September, 1984. In their condition as imported, the chassis will not conform to federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labeled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export.

The imported chassis will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines and other special purpose vehicles, some of which are more specifically outlined in the attached chart. *1 These vehicles will not be manufactured in conformity with federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or high-ways of the United States.

A R G U M E N T

THE NON-CONFORMING CHASSIS MAY BE IMPORTED BY VIRTUE OF 15 USC S1397(b)(5), AND THE IMPORTER MAY PROPERLY AFFIRM PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE HS FORM 7 IN SEEKING TO OBTAIN ENTRY OF THE CHASSIS INTO THE UNITED STATES.

As the chassis will be labeled accordingly, are intended to be exported from the United States and, after being sold and manufactured into complete, non-conforming vehicles, the finished vehicles will in fact be exported, it is our opinion that paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is the appropriate paragraph to be completed when making the declaration upon entry of the chassis into this country. As demonstrated below, this interpretation is supported by 15 USC S1397, the statute under which the HS

* We have been advised that the attached chart is a representative sampling of the types of vehicles which will be manufactured. Our client has further advised that manufacture of the buses depicted on the chart is not contemplated.

Form 7 is required to be filed to obtain entry of imported nonconforming vehicles or equipment items into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (Sept. 9, 1966), codified at 15 USC S1397 (1982), provides in pertinent part:

(a)(1) No person shall

(A) manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor Vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section;....

(b)(5) Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported. Id.

Construed together, these provisions establish that by virtue of S1397(b)(5), importation of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended for export and appropriately labeled or tagged to that effect fall squarely outside the general prohibition against manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment set forth in S1397(a)(1)(A). This is because the statute, designed to "provide for a coordinated national safety program and establishment of safety standards for motor vehicles in interstate commerce", (1966 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2709 (emphasis supplied)) was not intended to have any regulatory effect over the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended to be exported for use on the roads or highways of other nations.

The domestic orientation of the statute makes clear that the statute was not intended to have extraterritorial effects, but to provide a legislative response to the soaring casualty and injury levels caused by accidents occurring on our nation's highways. See id. at 2709-10. In this connection, it is important to note that prohibition of the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended to be exported for use on the roads of other countries would adversely affect the United States auto industry's ability to design and manufacture vehicles to the specifications of companies doing business in such countries having their own laws and vehicle standards. This, in turn, would hamper commercial relations with other nations, and simultaneously deprive a segment of our already declining motor vehicle manufacturing industry of the opportunity to remain productive and competitive in the marketplace. Clearly, the statute does not reasonably admit of such an interpretation which would give rise to results injurious to both our domestic and international interests.

Moreover, the legislative history plainly reveals that the statute was not meant to provide the administrating authorities with the power to usurp the design and manufacturing functions of private industry, which is made clear in the following statement:

The Committee ... recognizes that the broad powers conferred upon the Secretary, while essential to achieve improved traffic safety, could be abused in such a manner as to have serious adverse effects on the automotive manufacturing industry. The Committee is not empowering the Secretary to take over the design and manufacturing functions of private industry. Id. at 2712.

Certainly, were S1397 construed to prohibit the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment intended for export as completed non-conforming vehicles, then the government will have achieved the very take-over it sought to avoid, by requiring that all vehicles and equipment imported into the United States and subjected to manufacturing operations in this country must conform to federal motor vehicle safety standards even if the vehicles are never intended to be sold for use in the United States.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that S1397(b)(5) was intended to lift the prohibition against manufacture, importation, sale, etc., of non-conforming vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended for export, which are appropriately tagged to that effect, and in fact, exported. Any other interpretation would harm a United States industry already beset with the problems of grave unemployment and declining productivity, and run afoul of the statute's underlying scope and purposes.

C O N C L U S I O N

For these reasons, it is claimed that importation of non-conforming chassis which are: 1) intended to be exported after being manufactured into complete non-conforming vehicles; 2) labeled or tagged to that effect; and 3) in fact, exported, is permitted by virtue of S1397(b)(5). Accordingly, we request that a binding ruling be issued confirming that the importer seeking entry of non-conforming chassis into the United States under the circumstances described in this application may properly affirm paragraph 4 on the Department of Transportation's HS Form 7, indicating that the imported non-conforming merchandise is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled.

We would appreciate your acting on the enclosed request for a binding ruling at your earliest opportunity. Naturally, should you require any additional information prior to reaching a decision, kindly contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours, SIEGEL, MANDELL & DAVIDSON, P.C.

Michelle S. Benjamin MSB:ek

ID: 1984-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

According to your letter, your company manufactures parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers. One of your customers requested the installation of side-facing seats in the cargo area of the vehicle, and you asked whether FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 apply to these seats. As explained below, Standard No. 207 specifies no requirements for side-facing seats unless they have a hinged or folding back. Standard No. 210 does apply to these seats.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

You asked whether side-facing seats in the cargo area are required to meet Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

You asked what kind of testing is required for side-facing seats to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, side-facing seats are excluded from the performance requirements of Standard No. 207. Regarding the testing of the seats to FMVSS No. 210, a manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or method of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with this and all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards. Whether a manufacturer has in fact exercised due care cannot be determined by the agency in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance.

Your last question concerned FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that Virginia requires additional side marker lights than that required by Standard No. 108, and requested the agency to advise you on whether a state can specify more requirements than the standard. We assume that Virginia's requirement is a general one which applies to vehicles other than those procured for the state's own use.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, had been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

You indicated in the attachment to your letter that the vehicles for which Virginia is requiring the additional side marker lamps are less than 30 feet in overall length. Section S4.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Since the State standard prescribes mounting of side marking lights other than that required by the Federal standard, the State standard is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Your final question asked whether there are any States other than Virginia that have different requirements than FMVSS No. 108. In general, under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act States are prohibited from imposing safety standards applicable to the same aspect of performance governed by FMVSS No. 108. The limited exception in @103(d) allows States to promulgate requirements applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for the State's own use which impose a higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. States may also regulate aspects of performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are not governed by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. For example, there is no preemption of a State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment, such as foglamps, not currently included in Standard No. 108.

UTILIMASTER

June 29, 1984

Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: Utilimaster is a commercial truck manufacturer of parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers and we have some questions for you.

We have an application where the customer would like to have side-facing seats in the cargo area. Do we need to meet FMVSS 207 or 210 and what kind of testing of these seats is required?

Also, we have a question on FMVSS 108. I had a call from a Virginia dealer stating they require additional side marker lights. Can a State require more lighting and does any other State have different standards than FMVSS 108?

Dan Pugh Product Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Homer S. Meyers -- President, Easco, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1984, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend that you provide properly-anchored seat belts at each seating position.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

August 2, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pick-up truck accessories.

A potential new product which we are considering is a cross-bed seat for such trucks. A sketch is enclosed. This seat would be formed from plastic sheet of sufficient thickness to provide the necessary strength. It would be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing to the rear. It would be supported by the flange around the top, resting on the lip at the front and sides of the bed, and also by an aluminum leg in the middle of the front edge of the seat.

The seat would be held in place by sheet metal screws going into the lip of the bed. Slots would be cut in the rear of the seat to allow passage of seat belts to fastenings on the floor or front wall of the bed. Alternatively, the belts might be fastened to the seat itself with appropriate back-up strengthening plates.

I would apprediate having your opinion as to the safety standard regulations that would apply to such product.

Homer S. Myers

President

EASCO, Inc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Guthrie -- Guthrie Trailer Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION trailers; PART 565; S565.4(d)(1)

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth Guthrie Guthrie Trailer Sales, Inc. Box 1026 Great Bend, Kansas 67530

Dear Mr. Guthrie:

This is in response to your recent inquiry to Elizabeth Harrison of this office regarding the change of model year designation on Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN's) affixed to trailers manufactured by your company. VIN's are required to be affixed under the authority of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) and 49 CFR Part 565. The change of model year designation in the VIN can be made by changing the code letter to F for model year 1985, according to the table in 49 CFR Part 565.4(d)(1). No notification to the agency is required for a change of model year designation.

A copy of 49 CFR Part 565 is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1984-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. Yamada -- Technical Research Group, Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/26/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Melanie Turner (A33; Std. 205); 4/13/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Moe Pare (Std. 205); 11/3/88 letter from Melanie Turner to Erika Z. Jones (OCC 2777)

TEXT:

August 6, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of FMVSS 205

According to FMVSS 205, the windshield glass of a passenger car must have marks on it, such as "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark. But, we wonder if any problem would be caused from a compliance point of view if the mark were to appear underneath the moldings when the car was assembled? Please review the diagram below.

"INSERT"

I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group U.S. Office

KY:gcm

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AUG 31 1984

Mr. K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Yamada:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1984, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark required by the standard must be visible when a windshield installed in a passenger car. You explained that the windshield molding may cover the required marks.

The certification requirements of section S6 of the standard do not require the markings to remain visible after installation the glazing on a glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. The agency does, however, urge manufacturers to place the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code mark in a visible location whenever possible. Having the symbol and code in a vehicle location enables State motor vehicle inspection officials and U.S. Customs officials to easily determine if the glazing in the vehicle conforms to our standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phillip Ables -- Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Phillip Ables Work Activity Director Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita Rt. #1 1908 Winnsboro Rd. Monroe, LA 71202

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, making for information and assistance regarding regulations applicable to child car seats, any safety standards applicable to those seats and the agency responsible for testing.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213) sets forth requirements which must be set by all devices designed for use in a motor vehicle to seat children who weigh not more that 50 pounds. I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. As you will see, Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that the restraint protect a test dummy during a 30 mph crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 (copy attached) and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is required to deliver the equipment to be certified to a governmental agency for testing and approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification tbe made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend that a manufacturer producing child restraints certifying compliance with Standard No. 213, especially for the protection requirements in a 30 mph crash. Once the manufacturer determines that its child restraint meets the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by putting the appropriate language on the label permanently attached to the restraint.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraints contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(8) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(8) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer any elect to either:

l. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

You noted in your letter that your group had been asked to make car seats for children with physical disabilities. Since you are getting into a highly technical area, you may wish to contact Dr. John Melvin, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. Dr. Melvin has experience testing child restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children, and could provide you with information concerning that testing. His telephone number is (313) 763-3462.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Council Enclosures

July 30, l984 Mr. Steve Kratske Office of Chief Council NHTSA 4007 Street Southwest Washington, DC Dear Mr. Kratske:

ARC/O Industries is a sheltered workshop for the handicapped operated by the Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita. For the past year, we have been manufacturing customized, adaptive equipment-side lyers, prone standers, wheelchair inserts, etc. -for handicapped children.

The equipment we manufacture is made from a special type of laminated cardboard, four sheets thick, of remarkable strength and durability. The material is cheap, resilient and may be cut, painted, glued and doweled without difficulty.

Recently, we have begun manufacturing adaptive inserts for Handicapped Children's Services, a State Agency serving children with physical disabilities. This agency has asked us to make car seats to be used in the transportation of their clients.

I would appreciate any information or assistance you could give us regarding the regulations for manufactured car seats, safety standards, and agency responsible for testing. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, Philip Ablas Work Activity Director Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita

ID: 1984-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager, Quality Assurance Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager Quality Assurance Department Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 200 Parkridge, Illinois 60068

This responds to your letter dated February 17, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you asked several questions regarding the construction and labeling of hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars. In a subsequent telephone call to this office, your associate, Mr. Kitayama, informed us that your brake hoses would be used in motorcycles as well as passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose and fittings used in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. The requirements of the standard are the same regardless of whether your hoses are used in passenger cars or motorcycles.

Your first question asked whether a hydraulic brake hose may be constructed out of nylon. The answer to your question is yes. Nylon may be used to manufacture hydraulic brake hose, as long as the hose can meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your second question asked whether the standard prohibits labeling hydraulic brake hoses which have inside diameters between 0.110 and 0.118 inches as "1/8." The answer to your question is no. S5.2.2(d) of FMVSSS No. 106 requires that a hose's nominal inside diameter be expressed in inches or fractions of inches.

We note that the constriction requirement for hydraulic brake hoses in section 5.3.1 of Standard No. 106 is, of course, applicable to your hoses. That section states that:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.

Since the standard does not include tolerances for the labeling requirements for hydraulic brake hose, the standard does not prohibit you from labeling your hose "1/8." You should consider, however, how your brake hoses will be used in the industry and determine whether a safety problem might result from labeling your hose "1/8" when in fact they are smaller than 1/8 inch. One safety concern that you should consider is whether the tolerances you selected would result in the problem of mismatched hoses and end fittings. Another safety concern relates to the effect that cold weather has on the flow of fluid through the brake hose. Cold weather may thicken the fluid and restrict the flow through the hose. The thickened fluid and restricted flow through the hose may result in an increase in the time required for the brakes to respond.

Regardless of whether labeling your brake hose "1/8" is regulated by FMVSS No. 106, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider also the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 17, 1984

Office of Crash Avoidance Handling and Stability Div. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

Re. Questionnaire of Hydraulic brake hose for automobiles.

We are a manufacturer of automotive parts including hydraulic brake hose assembly to Toyota Motor Corporation and other Japanese auto makers. Our company name is registered in your file as follows:

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose maker

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose assembler

We have been developing new type of hydraulic brake hose for automobiles shown as attached, and making sales promotions. And regarding such a new type, please let us have the attached information.

We would like to ask you to answer to us by March 15, 1984.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Very truly yours,

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

Kazuhiko Ohkochi Manager Quality Assurance Dept. KO/kk Encl. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE

2.1 The above structure shows that a tube is made of Nylon, and meets performance requirements of FMVSS 106. As FMVSS 106 does not stipulate that a tube shall not be made of Nylon, we think that such a Nylon hose is also included among hydraulic brake hose for automobiles. We would like to have your comments on this matter (such a hose can be certified as a hydraulic brake hose).

2.2 If such a Nylon hose is certified, the hose's inside diameter is between 0.110 and 0.118 inch, and a little smaller than 1/8 inch (0.125 inch). We are now scheduled to use the hose as 1/8 inch hose and to subscribe "1/8" to the hose surface. We would like to know as to whether this subscription has any problem.

ID: 1984-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Purna Saggurti -- Research and Development, Nu-Fuel Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Purna Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Loretto, TN 38469

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1984, concerning the use of compressed natural gas (CGN) in vehicles. You asked the agency to clarify its position on CNG and to answer several questions about the alteration of a gasoline power vehicle so that it is both gasoline and CNG powered.

You are correct that Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, does not apply to CNG powered vehicles. The standard does not apply to vehicles using fuel, such as CNG, which has a boiling point below 32oF. Thus, the standard does not prevent the use of CNG in motor vehicles.

At the present time, the agency has no plans to extend the standard to CNG fuel systems. If you believe that a regulation on CNG systems is necessary, you can petition the agency to commence rulemaking. A copy of the agency's regulation on rulemaking petitions is enclosed.

The agency has prepared an extensive information sheet which explains how the standard applies to aftermarket installation of dual fuel systems in motor vehicles. Since the information sheet addresses the issues you have raised concerning CNG conversion, I am enclosing a copy for you review.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

August 8, 1984 Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As an alternate energy consulting agency, gaseous fuel Research and Development unit and a manufacturer of High Pressure Natural Gas Compressors, Carburetion Equipment and High Pressure Flow Meters, all of which are used in the automotive section for the application of Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel, Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. is concerned about the vague perspective of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301-75 and the lack of a comparable standard for Compressed Natural Gas.

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 "is to reduce deaths and injuries occuring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes", and applies to vehicles using fuel "with a boiling point above 32oF".

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 is commendable and is quite the priority of all users and manufacturers but the boiling point limitation eliminates the applicability of this standard to such alternate fuels like Compressed Natural Gas, whose boiling point is way below 32oF.

It has become an unjustified norm in the State Commission offices like those of the State Board of Education and their Superintendents that as the FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and as there is no comparable standard written by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for CNG, the usage of this economically incentive fuel is prohibited and as such shy away from it. It is thus imperative that the National Traffic Safety Administration make it very clear to the public where it stands and what its going to do about CNG and its usage. For example: "FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and does not prevent the usage of CNG. As a standard for CNG usage does not exist/is in the making, all those fuel systems that are manufactured and installed as per the National Fire Protection Agency Standard 52 written for Compressed Natural Gas vehicles would be accepted."

The safety record of Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles is enviable. The fuel containers used are DOT 3AA high pressure steel cylinders which have an incomparable safety factor attached to them. A recent severe abuse test done on composite reinforced aluminum storage cylinders (Society of Automotive Engineers Conference proceedings P-129, paper 831O68, June 22-23, 1983) only help in emphasizing with authority the superior structural strength and stability of these fuel containers over those containing gasoline and diesel.

A theoretical analysis done by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Gaseous Fuel Safety Assessment for light duty automotive vehicles-LA-9829-MS) shows that CNG is a far superior fuel from safety perspective, over gasoline and diesel, in both primary hazard and secondary hazard situations.

It is thus an irony that in spite of all these advantages the state level controlling agencies refuse to endorse this most economically viable fuel, all because the NHTSA has not taken a stand on this issue.

Almost all CNG conversions are done on used vehicles and all of them are done on vehicles that are sold without the intention of resale, thus the installers and component manufacturers are not required to go through the recertification process.

Is an alterer who converts a used gasoline powered vehicle so that it is both a gasoline-powered and a CNG-powered vehicle, responsible for recertification according to FMVSS 301-75 and if so what else does he have to meet?

A tamperer from the NHTSA stand point is one who changes components of a fuel system and he is supposedly exempt from the penalties if he does not indulge in the removing, disconnecting or reducing the performance of the already existing equipment. From a structural integrity standpoint the new component; have a safety factor of 4 to 1 and meet and exceed all of the NFPA 52 requirements. As the FMVSS 3O1-75 does not have specs written down for these components it would be beneficial to both parties to accept some norms set down by another Federal Agency which has covered both, component quality and installation procedures.

In conclusion, an indepth study of the CNG conversion process should be done by NHTSA and then necessary standards should be set up. A clear definition of an alterer, tamperer and their liability on working on used vehicles should be spelled out.

I would appreciate your responding to this at the earliest possible date letting me know of any applicable violations. I would also appreciate your making it very clear if NHTSA prohibits the usage of Compressed Natural Gas in passengers vehicles including school buses.

Please find enclosed, a brochure that explains our conversion process. Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions.

Thanking you.

Sincerely Yours, Purna R. Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development PRS/sa Encl.

ID: 1984-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.D. Carter -- International Legal Dept., Hope Computer Corporation AS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. D. Carter International Legal Department Hope Computer Corporation As 1 Hobrovej DK-9560, Hadsund Denmark

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification of certain of the agency's standards. The answers to your question are discussed below.

1. Standard No. 203, impact protection for the driver from the Steering Control System, does not require the use of a specific design for the steering column. It requires that when the steering column is tested, it must absorb a certain amount of energy. Manufacturers have thus far chosen to meet this requirement by using a steering wheel and column which incorporate an energy-absorbing unit in them so that the column collapses in a controlled manner in a crash. You are correct that an air cushion equipped vehicle complying with the occupant crash protection criterion of Standard No. 208 in a frontal barrier crash does not have to comply with Standard No. 203.

2. You pointed out an inconsistency between the description of Standard No. 216 in DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 and the text of Standard No. 216 codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The text in the CFR is correct. Compliance with Standard No. 216 was an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 prior to August 15, 1977. When the provision allowing compliance with Standard No. 216 as an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 was eliminated, the text of DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 was not corrected. Thank you for calling this matter to my attention.

3. Your third question asks, in effect, whether automatic or motorized belts are considered automatic restraints under Standard No. 208. You question whether they would qualify since "they still have to be latched." You are correct that if automatic or motorized blts have be latched by an occupant before they will provide protection, they would not be considered automatic restraints by this agency. However, Volkswagen currently sells in the United States an automatic belt system which does not require latching before each use and which is certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Like wise, Toyota sells a motorized belt system which does not require latching and is certified as complying with Standard No. 208. I have enclosed for you information a copy of the Department's July 11, 1984, final rule on the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208.

4. Neither Standard No. 301 nor the requirements of Section S9.2 of Standards No. 208 apply to batteries used in battery-powered vehicles. There are no other safety standards that set performance requirement for batteries.

5. Your final question asked whether S4.5.3.3(b) of Standard 208 should conclude with the words "or condition (C). You are correct that the words "or condition (c)" should appear at the end of S4.5.3.3(b). On January 8, 1981, the agency amended section S4.5.3.3(b). The amendment as published in the Federal Register include the words "or condition (c). Unfortunately, the the correct text was not adopted in the Code Federal Regulation. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

Att: Mr. Oesch, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir

I am writing to obtain clarification/interpretation of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 CFR 571, certain sections of 14 U.S.C.A., as well as a DOT pamphlet which, though not a statue or regulation, is an official publication providing guidance concerning NHTSA practice which the user cannot glean from the statutes and regulations. Our lack of clarity may be due to inability to promptly obtain the latest changes and materials; thus, I am enclosing photocopies of the sections to which I refer.

1. According to DOT pamphlet HS 805 674, revised November 1983, page 7, SN 203, it would appear that the forward yielding steering column is required ("by providing"), though this requirement nowhere appears in the test of SN 203; is the forward yielding steering column required by the SAE "Steering wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure" or has the forward-yielding steering column proven to be the only way of meeting the requirement in practice in the absence of an air cushion ("by means other than seat belt assemblies",S2)?

2. According to the same DOT pamphlet, SN 216 "provides an alternative to conformity with the rollover tests of SN 208." This alternative is stated in general terms. However, SN 216, S3 expressly exempts convertibles from meeting the rollover standards of SN 208 if they meet the roof crush resistance standards of SN 216. Has this exemption been extended in practice to all passenger cars? Quite clearly, the wording of SN 216 exempts passenger cars meeting the requirements of SN 208's rollover test by means that require no action by vehicle occupants from the roof crush requirements of SN 216, but how is the contrary read form the wording of SN 216?

3. Note on page 312 of 49 CFR 571, 1.Oct.82, defines "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in 49 CFR 571. 208 as "a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. Under this interpretation, the concept does not include 'forced action' systems as described above". Thus, since automatic or motorized belts still have to be latched, they would not qualify as passive restraints, since passive belts are defined in 49 CFR 571. 208 S4.5.3 as requiring "no action by vehicle occupants". The note on page 312 concludes "This interpretation is not intended to rule out the possibility that further rulemaking action may be taken in the future to permit such systems in certain cases." Recent articles have led me to believe that subsequent to 1. October 1982, "passive restraints" have been interpreted to include automatic or motorized belt systems, as will as air cushions and energy-absorbing interiors. Please inform us on the current concepts of "passive restraint" and "no action by vehicle occupants".

4. It is not immediately clear that car batteries or battery-powered cars are covered by 49 CFR 571.301; neither does 49 CFR 571.208 (S9.2) seem to cover batteries. What standards are controlling for the battery power system in a motor vehicle?

5. Hope Motor Company A/S of Denmark has undertaken to import battery-powered motor cars into the United States. If we should need to apply for a 15 USCA 1410(a)(1)(c) exemption, the battery-powered vehicle may be required to quality as a "low-emission vehicle", as defined in 15 USCA 1410(g). Could you confirm that the battery-powered car does indeed qualify as a "low-emission" vehicle? The relevant data are enclosed in schematic form.

6. Should 49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.3.3 in fin (just prior to subsection A) conclude with the words "or condition (C)"?

I would appreciate your prompt assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, HOPE COMPUTER CORPORATION AS M.D. Carter International Legal Department

Encs.