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: nht76-3.18

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning your previous suggestion for an amendment to the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. Your July 18, 1975, letter suggested that brake hose end fittings attached by means of a dimensional interference fit be considered, along with those attached by heat shrinking, to be permanently attached for purposes of the standard. Please forgive our oversight regarding that letter. We have identified it as a petition for rulemaking and now find it to have merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted and a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

January 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74

A reply to our letter dated July 18, 1975 concerning the above subject has not yet been received. A copy of this original request for standard amendment is enclosed for your review.

Response at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: nht76-3.19

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NVT America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which you pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires the manufacturer, as defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.

I trust this fully responds to your questions.

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.