ID: nht90-3.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. -- Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Management, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Mental Retardation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from George C. Shifflett to Oscar W. Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 1-4-91 from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted.)

TEXT:

During the past year I have had various contacts with Mr. George C. Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, Office of Vehicle Safety about our concerns for the safety of our residents and staff accompanying them in the vehicles. The vendor who sold the vehicles to the state has converted the vehicles to accommodate the needs of the residents. When contacted last year the vendor stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with state and federal regulations.

While Mr. Shifflett and I have communicated about this at different times and I have received copies of two letters sent to persons addressing similar concerns, I have not received any regulations or rules answering our concerns as outlined and presented to Mr. Shifflett. Therefore, since we are committed to insuring the safety and welfare of our residents and staff, your interpretation of the aforementioned process and its applicability to us will be greatly appreciated.

I would like to take this opportunity in advance to thank you for your attention to this important matter.

ID: nht90-3.5

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 2, 1990

FROM: Dean A. Palius--Program Manager, VIA Systems

TO: Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to D.A. Palius (A36; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is written pursuant to our conversation this date regarding requirements for tow road length in the performance of occupant crash protection tests conducted in accordance with FMVSS No. 208.

As I stated to you on the phone, Via Systems is a manufacturer of automotive safety testing equipment. Via has supplied such products to the U.S. automotive industry for the past twenty (20) years. In reviewing a recent Via proposal for a crash test fa cility, a potential customer raised the issue of whether or not there was a specific legal requirement for a tow road to be 500 feet in length per the OVSC Laboratory test procedures, section 12.5. We indicated to the customer that FMVSS No. 208 only sp ecified the speed at which the test had to be performed. The length of the tow road was strictly a determination to be made by the manufacturer. We further stated that the OVSC procedures were utilized by that lab and others conducting tests specifical ly on behalf of the government. The procedures were not designed for manufacturer certifications and were developed for equipment specific to OVSC. After providing the above discussed information and a copy of FMVSS No. 208 to the client, the client co ntinues to show some discomfort regarding the legal mandate.

Pursuant to our conversation today, you have indicated that your office would issue a written opinion indicating that there is no legal requirement regarding tow road length. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1990

FROM: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re NCC--01

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from PJ. Rice to W.T. Mullen (A36; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are having serious problems with the 13, 1990 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars, that we purchased in January 1990.

First: Our officers are experiencing difficulties with the shoulder harnesses, which is very serious. The shoulder harnesses causes a blind spot on the drivers left side, where the strap is connected to the door. There is a definite deficiency with vis ual surveillance.

Second: The shoulder harnesses also prevents left arm movements of our taller officers.

We now have 10, 1989 Chevrolet Caprice Squad cars and have not experienced any problems with the shoulder harnesses.

Would it be permissable to install 1989 style shoulder harnesses and lap belts in our 1990 models. If this is acceptable, please notify us in writing as soon as possible, so we may correct these problems.

Thank you for your time and concern.

ID: nht90-3.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Erhardt (A36; VSA Sec. 10(a)(2))

TEXT:

As you may know, we at Philips are working on the development of high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems for use as motor vehicle headlamps. These systems promise dramatic improvements in forward illumination while using less energy in a lower p rofile (allowing more aerodynamic vehicle design).

We are now at the point in our development where we have engineering samples available that we wish to test on road vehicles and would like to be advised of the laws concerning such an undertaking. It is our intention to equip 110 private and/or company vehicles for everyday use. The test would continue indefinitely (for lifetime/reliability evaluation) and could begin as early as August 27, 1990.

If a waiver or official authorization for this type of test is necessary, please consider this a request for same.

Given the competitive nature of the market that this product is being developed for, we are interested in beginning our test as soon as possible. A response by August 27 would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning our program please contact either our Director, Mark Fellows, or myself at Advance Transformer (708) 390-5000.

ID: nht90-3.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI CORPORATION

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to Dean J. Long from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 105; Std. 101)

TEXT:

I have two automotive instrument panel telltale warnings I wish to confirm are legal in the views of the NHTSA Legal Council and FMVSS. The attached sheet shows my two proposals.

The first is a 4 wheel antilock brake application. Techically, I believe this telltale is legal due to the approved abbreviation "ABS" being present. I have seen the antilock brake ISO symbol which is similar to the one I have shown except the car and "skid marks" are replaced with the "ABS" abbreviation. My question here is, Will this telltale fullfil the requirements or do I need to replace the car and "skid marks" ISO symbol with the "ABS" ISO symbol?

The second telltale is used for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. I have seen numerous telltales relating to this application. A few you may be familar with "SERVICE ENGINE SOON", "SERV ENG SOON", "CHECK ENGINE" or simply "CHECK". I would like to know two things concerning this application. One, is the word "CHECK" necessary with the engine outline? Two, is the engine outline an approved ISO symbol and if not yet will it be concidered at a later date?

Please respond on or before August 27 1990 as I must begin a production run with these telltales. Thank you for your assistance and if you need to contact us please call Mike Benoit at (313) 853-2266.

Attachment

Picture of two telltale warnings. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Ozeki -- Executive Vice President, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 214, "Side Door Strength"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Hiroshi Ozeki (A37; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Door Strength". Specifically, Mazda would like NHTSA's interpretation of the definition of the phrase, "...(t)he lowest point of the door;" . This phrase is found at S4(c)(2) under test procedures.

One of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 mm (please see attached figure). Thus, in order that the loading device used for compliance testing is positioned properly, Mazda needs to know what position, A or B, is the "lowest point of the door".

Should you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. Ted Kadoya (626-3263) at our Washington D.C. office.

Attachment

Drawing of side doors and moulding (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 13, 1990

FROM: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: General Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to T.J. Loughran (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On December 13, 1989 the Bargman Company requested an opinion regarding a turn signal lamp with a combined reflector. Acting Chief Counsel Stephen P. Wood issued an opinion on February 26, 1990. The opinion used the terms tail lamp and turn signal lamp interchangeably. The result is chaos, as you can see from the attached copy of a release published in an industry magazine.

Although I totally disagree with his opinion regarding he suitability of an amber reflector as an auxiliary device on the rear of a vehicle, it is not as disastrous as promulgating the idea that an amber tail lamp is also acceptable. I do not believe th e amber tail lamp was his intent but that has been the effect as a result of a inadvertent use of words.

Both of these conditions are a major disappointment to those who take highway safety seriously, first, because of the impairment of highway safety, and second, because the opinion was issued without benefit of review and comment by concerned individuals and organizations.

Your review of this condition will be appreciated. (Attached is an article entitled, It's the Law, Rear Amber Reflector, text omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Gerald F. Vinci -- Sun Refining and Marketing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to G.F. Vinci (A36; FMVSS 301; VSA 108(b)(1)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-79 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M. Champagne

TEXT:

Our research and development department at Sun Refining and Marketing Company is interested in converting the fuel system of a new vehicle from gasoline to propane. Sun does not intend to act as a manufacturer. The only portion of the vehicle which wil l be substantially altered is the fuel system. The vehicle is intended to be driven under normal traffic conditions and would maintain a lower emission level than that required under the Clean Air Act.

I spoke recently with Dee Fujita and Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office. After factually reviewing the project, both concluded that such a vehicle would not violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations. Ms. Fuj ita and Mr. Vinson did however caution that there may be requirements under state law.

We recognize the importance of highway safety and intend to fully comply with all applicable federal laws. To assist us, I respectfully request an opinion letter addressing compliance of such a vehicle with the Act and its regulations. If you need any additional information, please contact me at (215)246-8251.

ID: nht90-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-27-90 to Paul G. Scully from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A few days ago, one of our fleet customers telephoned our Sales Department and advised that they were notified that the Peterson reflex reflectors used on their vehicles were not legal because they did not have the SAE-A marking one them. Sergeant Harti gan of the Traffic Enforcement Division was under the impression that SAE markings were required because they are still shown as a requirement in the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. As you know, Federal Safety Standard 108 requirement s do not mandate the use of SAE markings on any regulated products. I believe this is the third instance in the past two years (the other two occurring in Texas) where police officials have mistakenly advised our customers that our products were illegal and should be removed. The reflex reflector products in questions do have the DOT markings on them and we certify that these products are in full compliance with Federal Safety Standards for reflex reflectors. These thin, flexible reflectors are diecu t which explains why it would be somewhat difficult and costly to put the SAE impressions on this thin film; therefore, we elected not to do it even though the SAE code markings are, in fact, used on all of our other products. It is somewhat ironic that Peterson Manufacturing Company led the industry effort to require SAE markings as part of the MVSS 108 requirements. Our company initiated the petition to require code markings, but after about one year of study, we were advised that this petition had been denied, even though the majority of the departments in both the NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety agreed with our petition. I am sure that Messrs. Felrice and Helmuth remember our many discussions concerning these markings.

These reflex reflectors are sold in large volumes both to original equipment manufacturers and as replacement products throughout the nation and, I emphasize again that they fully comply with all requirements. It is quite unfortunate that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the OMCS, still retains these marking requirements in their publication. Again, we would be pleased to have all regulated items marked as per our petition because it would avoid situations like these, as well as impe de the importation of many illegal products from the Orient which are never identified as to the source.

We would like to request that you promptly notify the Tucson Police Department that these products are not required to have SAE markings in order to be perfectly legal reflectors. I would also like to once again appeal for a uniform set of regulations b etween the two government agencies involved. We can probably expect similar misunderstandings to occur by other municipal authorities unless some action is taken.

ID: nht90-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR., SNUG SEAT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 6-15-90 to E. T. Jones from N. B. Scott, Jr.; (OCC 4904); also attached to copy of photograph

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion on the procedures to be followed in testing a new car bed designed to transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position. Your letter and enclosed photograph indicate that you have tested the car bed with the six-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR S572.25. While the dummy's torso fits in the car bed, the legs did not. You state that "(a) dynamic crash test showed the dummy staying in the shell and the shell maintaining it's integrity." You asked whether this testing would be "adequate relative to the present standard."

By way of introduction, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simul ation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, includi ng such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

However, the agency can say that your company's decision to use the smallest test dummy included in Part 572 (the six month old test dummy) to conduct certification testing and to conduct the testing in accordance with the procedures specified in Standar d No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, appears reasonable. If that test dummy cannot be positioned entirely within the car bed, it also appears reasonable to position the

test dummy's head and torso completely within the car bed and allow the test dummy's feet and part of the legs to fall outside of the car bed. This is because S5.1.3.3 of Standard No. 213 requires all portions of the test dummy's head and torso to be ret ained within the confines of the car bed, so the head and torso must obviously begin within the car bed.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care, may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsib ility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.