ID: nht76-3.10

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William K. Rosenberry Esq.; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client "may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the non-compliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alternations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

ID: nht76-3.11

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht76-3.12

DATE: 08/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Attwood Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1976, in which you ask whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to portable toilets.

Standard 302 applies to the motor vehicles listed in Section S3, including the equipment installed in them at the time of sale. Section S4 lists those parts of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements, and a portable toilet is not included. Therefore, it is not subject to the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.

SINCERELY,

June 23, 1976

Federal Highway and Transportation Safety Administration NHTSA

DEAR SIR:

I am trying to find the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302 which covers portable toilets. Please send me any information you have on this.

Thank you.

SINCERELY,

ATTWOOD CORPORATION

Don Dekker

ID: nht76-3.13

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht76-3.15

DATE: 09/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bing Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you ask about our regulations concerning the modification of "vans" to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.

The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.

From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears that you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that if you modify a Ford "Econoline" in all probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtain copies of these regulations.

Sincerely,

Aug. 16, 1976

Dear Sir, I am interested in your policies and regulation for camping, vans. I am planning to do modifications of standard manufactured vans (e.g: Ford "Econoline") which would involve plumbing, water, electrical (no (Illegible Lines)) seating.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.

Bing Johnson

ID: nht76-3.16

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concerning testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, heat resistant wires are used to support a "specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.

Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, and your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.

More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wires do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.

Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that are required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

February 18, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are an independent testing laboratory, whose services include conducting the tests for flammability, including the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. A question concerning the test procedure and method has been brought to our attention and we need an official interpretation.

The test method states, "A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat-resistant wires, spanning the width of the u-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals". We have always interpreted this statement to mean that if the material would have a tendency to become almost vertical upon ignition you would support the material with the wires, otherwise the wires would not be needed; as an example, a specimen of plastic or a headlining material would be supported by the wires. A large percentage of our testing is on materials related to carpeting, either woven or tufted, and we do not use the wires for support since the material does not have a tendency to become vertical during the test.

A manufacturer has sent us some material which is to be used as an upholstery fabric and asked us to conduct the test No. 302. We conducted the test according to the procedure; however, we did not use the support wires on this material as we felt the material was not covered under the above statement. The material was cut into four specimens, two specimens in the machine direction and two specimens in the "cross-machine" direction. Two specimens are tested with the "face up" in both directions and two specimens are tested with "face-down" in both directions, as we cannot determine prior to the test which will give us the most adverse results (para. S5.2.2). The material failed the test. We are enclosing a copy of the test results with the manufacturers name blotted out.

When the manufacturer received the report, he was quite upset, as a copy of his letter to us shows. The material, according to him, should be tested using the support wires which in this case allows the material to pass the test; however, if the support wires are not used, the material will almost always fail the test. We have told him that we do not conduct the test so that the results would always be beneficial to the manufacturer, but that we conduct the test in accordance with the standard and our interpretation of the test method which in some cases is not beneficial to the manufacturer. It is our opinion that flammability tests are not conducted in such a way as to suit a manufacturer because he wants a passing report, but that the test should be conducted under the most adverse conditions so as to give a true look at the material being tested.

I am enclosing a piece of the material in question and hope to have a ruling as soon as possible as to whether or not support wires should be used with this material. We have other tests to perform which we are holding until we hear from you.

Cornelius C. Setter

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TEST NUMBER

-REPORT-

CONSUMER: (Illegible Words)

SUBJECT: (Illegible Words) (Illegible Text)

ID: nht76-3.17

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Fachnormenausschuss Kraftfahrzeuge - FAKRA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1975, in which you recommended a modification of the testing procedures pursuant to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your modification would require the presence of support wires in all tests. After consideration of the recently-complied test data on the use of support wires in the testing procedures, the NHTSA has decided that modification of the standard should be considered along the lines you suggest.

The NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 302 to permit the use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurred. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that support wires would not influence the test results. More recent testing by the agency indicates that the use of support wires does significantly affect burn rates. For this reason, the agency is considering various possibilities in addition to the one you suggest.

Thank you for sending us a copy of your Draft International Standard. We appreciate your concern in this matter.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht90-2.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Earl W. Dahl -- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.,Vice President

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-31-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Earl W. Dahl; Also attached to letter dated 5-31-89 To Garry Gallagher and From Erika Z. Jones

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574,Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be in cluded in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 re quires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR S571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119) together with Part 574 require that, certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire s ubject' to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information for the safe use of the tires. (These standards) permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intende d to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner.

Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse tbe meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

ID: nht90-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: CHARLES M.A. SAEDT

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4-25-90 LETTER TO CHARLES M.A. SAEDT FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; IMPORT) TEXT:

I am a nonresident who stays temporary in Maryland (from may 88 till June 1991).

I am a member of the Dutch Armed forces.

It is my intention to buy a Volkswagen Jetta diesel (European specification) straight from the factory in Germany and then ship this car to the USA.

I will not sell the car and I will take this car back to The Netherlands in June 1991.

I understand that I need to get some kind of exemption to do so when I import this car temporary to the USA.

Please inform me about the exact steps that I have to undertake to import this vehicle temporary to the USA without any problems.

I hope I will hear from you soon.