ID: nht90-3.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 6-11-90 to S. P. Wood from T. Llama; (OCC 4894) and letter dated 6-12-90 to T. Llama from D. Sander

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990, with respect to the allowability of a temporary importation of a vehicle from Panama that does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Specifically, the vehicle is a "van" manufactured in the Soviet Union. Its Panamanian owner has requested that your company design and install a dual air conditioning unit for the vehicle. Once you have built and installed the unit, the van will be ret urned to Panama for evaluation and testing. You anticipate that the van will be in the United States for at least 90 days.

After our review of this matter, we have determined that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investig ations, studies, or demonstrations. This declaration appears as Box 7 on the HS-7 importation form under which the vehicle will enter the United States.

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

ID: nht90-3.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice, NHTSA

TO: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 7-19-90 to R. v. Iderstine from T. Spingler; (OCC 5014)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of July 19, 1990, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sour ces." In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add "silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens." Mr. Medlin informed you that this w ould be a "bonded lens and reflector assembly."

The standard does not define "bonded", but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the d efinition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-3.45

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-20-90 to B. Felrice from H. R. Chappell; (OCC 4465); and photos (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter asking how Federal regulations would apply to a product called a "Ventvisor" manufactured by your company. You enclosed a brochure that included pictures of the Ventvisor. Described as a rain deflector, the Ventvisor appears t o be a strip of molded tinted glazing material several inches wide that is secured on the window frame and running from the front around the top of side windows on motor vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how the requirements of this agency apply to this product.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, howe ver, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' resp onsibilities under the Safety Act and how to obtain copies of this agency's standards and regulations.

Your company's product is described as made of "acrylic" and would appear to overlap a portion of the side windows of motor vehicles that are "requisite for driving visibility." Accordingly, this product would be a glazing material for use in motor vehi cles and would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.

Standard No. 205 permits devices such as your company's Ventvisor to be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in Standard 205). Your company's use of acrylic would appear to be acceptable since this type of rigid plastic could have an Item 4 rating, and Item 4 glazing may be used as a wind deflector on the side window of any vehicle.

You should note that all Item 4 glazing must comply with Test No. 2 in ANS Z26, which requires the material to have a light transmittance of not less

than 70 percent. Your letter noted that one version of your Ventvisor is not tinted, while another version is tinted so that it has 47.5 percent light transmittance. This tinted version of the Ventvisor would appear to not comply with the light transmi ttance requirements of Standard No. 205. The standard also sets forth additional performance requirements for Item 4 glazing, as well as marking requirements for the glazing. If your company determines that the Ventvisor complies with the requirements o f Standard No. 205, it may certify each Ventvisor in accordance with the provisions of S6 of Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment u nless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell the Ventvisor or any other glass or plastic wind defl ector to be mounted on front side windows, unless those products comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Federal law provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the Ventvisor, also have responsibilities under the Safety Act for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The Safety Act requires such manufacturers t o notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Richard L. Van Iderstine -- Safety Standards Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: Re The effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (S7.7.5.1(a))

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 to S. Watanabe from P. J. Rice; (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to have your advice on the effective date of the downward torque deflection requirements for external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps (Paragraph S7.7.5. 1 (a)).

In our understanding, the effective date is September 1, 1990 and on or after this date, Lamp manufacturers (such as Stanley, not car manufacturer), have to manufacture the external mechanical aiming of replaceable bulb headlamps which conform the downwa rd torque deflection requirements (Paragraph S7.7.5.1 (a)). Are they correct understandings?

Your kind advice will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, IDEAL Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Kimmelman (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

When a new car, light truck or van is purchased and delivered to the buyer with a dealer installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it is our understanding that at the time of delivery the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We further interpret the Standards to require the following:

1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer .

2. The hazard warning flasher must be certified as meeting the require- ments of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.

3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage indication is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.

Please inform us if the interpretations noted above agree with those of the Department of Transportation.

ID: nht90-3.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Rembert Ryals -- Attorney at Law

TO: Steven Krapzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Schmidt - Volkswagen

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Ryals (A36; Std. 208; Std. 209)

TEXT:

I assume you probably thought you had heard the last from me. However, before I can satisfy myself and my clients that the 1980 Volkswagen which my clients' son was driving when he was killed was in compliance with the CFRs, I need the answer to two or three additional questions.

My client has obtained a copy of the CFRs which were in effect when the Volkswagen was manufactured. These are noted as having been revised October 1, 1979. My client, whose husband is an engineer, has compared the regulations with those that succeeded them and finds no material difference. However, I wanted you to know the date of the standards to which I am referring because I am going to note certain page numbers and, in fact, will enclose a copy of two or three pages and wanted to be certain you knew that these where the 1979 regulations. In short, the page numbers may not correspond with the regulations which are now current but as stated, they do not materially differ.

First, enclosed is a copy of page 307. An examination of S4.1.2.1 states that the automobile must meet the lateral crash protection requirements of S5.2 and the roll-over crash protection requirements of S5.3. You have previously told me that the regul ations are performance standards and you talked to me about vehicles being subjected to head-on collision tests at certain speeds. Page 310 of the regulations, and particularly S5.3, states that a vehicle must pass the "roll-over" requirements. My clie nts' son's vehicle was killed when his vehicle rolled and we have an expert who is recognized throughout the Northwest who has stated that if the boy had had a fastened lap seat belt, his injuries would have not been severe. However, our Volkswagen did n ot have any lap seat belt in it when it was manufactured. I wanted you to let me know whether the Volkswagen did pass the "roll-over" test.

I also enclose a copy of page 319 which relates to Standard 571.209. That standard seems to unequivocally state that there must be a pelvic restraint in the vehicle, whether or not there is an upper torso restraint and that this pelvic restraint must be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of the vehicle. As stated, had there been a seat belt in this vehicle, the boy would not have been severely injured and certainly would not have been killed. That is at least the opinion of our expert.

Please give me your understanding as to whether the Volkswagen was subjected to the roll-over test and did satisfactorily pass it and,

secondly, please comment on the apparent inconsistency between 571.209 and the provisions of 208.

I will look forward to hearing from you and wish to thank you in advance for your assistance.

Attached is a copy of Federal Register, sections 571.208 and 571.209, Chap. V, pages 307, 309, 310 and 319 (text omitted).

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.