ID: nht80-2.18

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stewart-Warner Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. W. Strauss Stewart-Warner Corporation Washington Offices 425 - 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Mr. Strauss:

This responds to your letter of January 24, 1980, which requested approval of an odometer design developed by Stewart-Warner in order to comply with section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. Based on our understanding of the information that you have supplied, it appears that Stewart-Warner's design, which incorporates either a seventh wheel or a sixth wheel (for odometers which do not register tenths of a mile) printed with a series of the numeral 1 to indicate that the vehicle has traveled in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers, would comply with section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127.

Section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127 requires that each odometer other than a motorcycle odometer:

"clearly indicate to the vehicle driver by a sixth wheel or digit registering whole miles or kilometers or by a permanent means such as inking, when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers, as appropriate, has exceeded either at the manufacturer's option 89,999 or 99,999."

Stewart-Warner's design, as described in your letter, would register whole miles or kilometers from 100,000 to 199,999. Once the vehicle in which the odometer was installed had traveled 200,000 miles or kilometers, or more, the additional wheel on the Stewart-Warner design would no longer register whole miles or kilometers but it would indicate that the vehicle mileage had exceeded 99,999. Thus, the Stewart- Warner design, as we understand it, would apparently comply with section 4.2.3's requirement that each odometer indicate that such mileage has been exceeded.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and the model that you provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on any vehicle design or design for vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment in accordance with that determination.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have pot been greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 24, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S. W., Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request approval of the design approach of the Stewart-Warner Corporation to comply with Section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127--Speedometers and Odometers.

The design approach represents the outgrowth of a 100,000-mile odometer concept originally presented on December 12, 1979, to NHTSA personnel by representatives of Stewart-Warner. At the time of this meeting, our approach to satisfying the requirements of the standard to have odometers indicate when they have exceeded 99,999 whole miles or kilometers was to add a sixth pinion gear to the assembly. This pinion gear was to have two-thirds of its circumference coated with a fire orange fluorescent color, thereby serving as an indication to the operator that the mileage on the vehicle was in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers. It was to be installed in such a way that an area of approximately .125 x .375 inches would be visible on the left hand side of the odometer when the vehicle would be operating between 100,000 and 299,000 miles or kilometers.

The aforementioned approach to meeting the FMVSS 127 requirements was discarded when the NHTSA personnel indicated some doubt as to whether this approach would clearly indicate to the operator when the vehicle had exceeded 99,999 miles or kilometers. After some discussion of other approaches to resolving this problem, it was agreed by all parties that the digit "1" must appear on the left hand side of the odometer if it was to clearly indicate having reached the 100,000 mile or kilometer distance.

Based on the above, the Stewart-Warner design has been changed to incorporate a seventh odometer wheel, or a sixth wheel if the odometer does not register tenths of a mile, printed with a series of number "1" on the outside periphery of the wheel. Thus, the odometer will indicate an excess of 100,000 miles or kilometers after the vehicle has traveled over 99,999 miles or kilometers.

Your prompt approval of the aforementioned design approach as a means of meeting the requirements of Section 4.2.3 of FMVSS 127 will be appreciated. A prototype mechanism equipped with a 100,000-mile odometer assembly is available for your inspection if it will assist in your review of this request.

Yours sincerely,

R. W. Strauss

RWS/jp

ID: nht80-2.19

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corp

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake, Ohio 44094

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of January 15, 1980, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You described a control to be included in heavy duty truck tractors which would operate the cab marker lights and some of the trailer lamps and asked whether Safety Standard 101 would permit labeling of the control with the words "marker lamps."

We have concluded, for the reasons stated below, that Safety Standard 101 would not permit the control to be labeled in the fashion you suggest. However, it would permit labeling of the control with the symbol for clearance lamps designated therein accompanied by the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps" and by the words "marker lamps."

With respect to vehicles including trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings exceeding 10,000 pounds manufactured before September 1, 1980, S4 of Safety Standard 101 permits manufacturers to comply with its requirements or with those of Safety Standard 101-80. S4.2.1 of Safety Standard 101 requires that a control which operates clearance lamps, identification lamps and/or side marker lamps be identified with the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviations "C1 Lps" as shown in Table I Column 2 of the standard. In addition, S4.2.1 provides that such a control may also be identified by one of the symbols for clearance lamps shown in Columns 3 and 4 of Table I. (See Table I, Footnote 3. S5.2.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 requires that such a control be labeled with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3 of Table I of the standard. However, this symbol may be accompanied by the word or abbreviation shown in Column 2 (i.e., Clearance Lamps or C1 Lps) and additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. (See Table I, Footnote 3.) The requirements of Safety Standard No. 101-80 will become mandatory and will supercede those of Safety Standard 101 for all vehicles to which it applies which are manufactured on or after September 1, 1980.

According to your product description, the control which you propose to label with the words "marker lamps" would operate some of the trailer lamps and the cab marker lamps which also serve as clearance lamps. Thus, the control would be considered to operate clearance lamps and marker lamps and would be subject to the provisions of Safety Standard 101, Table I, Footnote 3. Accordingly, on vehicles manufactured before to September 1, 1980, the control you propose either must be identified in one of the following methods:

1. with the words "CLEARANCE LAMPS" or the abbreviations "CL LPS", or

2. with the words or abbreviations shown in method number 1 above accompanied by the symbol shown in Column 3 of Table I or by the symbol shown in Column 4, Table I, of Safety Standard No. 101, or

3. with the symbol for clearance lamps shown in Column 3, Table I, of Safety Standard 101-80, or

4. with the symbol noted in method number 3 above accompanied by the words "clearance lamps" or the abbreviations "Cl Lps" as shown in Column 2 of Table I of Safety Standard 101-80, or

5. with the symbol and the words or abbreviations noted in method number 4 above accompanied by any additional clarifying words or symbols the manufacturer may choose.

If the control you have proposed is included in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1980, it must be identified as indicated in method number 3 above and may be identified as indicated in method number 4 or 5 above. Use of method number 5 above would permit use of the words "marker lamps" in addition to the required symbol and the words "Clearance Lamps" or the abbreviation "C1 Lps."

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S. W.

Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-101 Control Location Identifcation and Illumination

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

White Motor Corporation requests an interpretation of FMVSS 101 Table I relative to the identification of the controls for clearance lamps, marker lamps, identification lamps and combinations thereof. This request is limited to the application of these controls to heavy duty truck tractors such as those manufactured by White.

Product Description

"Cab Over Engine" (COE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and the side marker lamps when viewed from the side of the vehicle.

"Cab Behind Engine" (CBE) vehicles have five lamps spaced across the top of the cab. The outboard lamps usually are the clearance lamps when viewed from the front of the vehicle and may be considered intermediate side marker lamps (optional, not required by MVSS-108) when viewed from the side of the vehicle. There are also side marker lamps installed near the front of the hood or fenders.

Background

Tractor manufacturers, in addition to providing the required lights on the power units, also provide the circuitry for the trailer lights. Many operators use additional trailer lamps for conspicuity and in recent years double bulb lamps for reliability have become popular. Also, many operators use an interrupter switch allowing the driver to flash some of the trailer lights for signaling purposes. These switches are not covered by FMVSS-101 and are often labeled "trailer lights" or "trailer marker lights", the latter being the more popular nomenclature. In order to increase the reliability of the lighting switches and provide for interchangability between trailers owned by various companies some tractors are being manufactured with split lighting circuits and separate switches which are identified and illuminated as required by FMVSS-101. One switch operates the tractor head lamps and tail lamps as well as the trailer taillamps. This switch may also be wired to some of the trailer clearance, identification and marker lamps. Second and third switches may activate combinations of tractor/trailer clearance, identification or marker lamps.

Interpretation Request

MVSS-101 provides labeling nomenclature for "Clearance lamps" and "Identification lamps" but none for marker lamps. It also mentions that clearance lamps combined with identification and/or marker lamps should use the labeling nomenclature clearance lamps. Relative to the five cab mounted lights (see "Product Description" section above) White considers the term "marker lamps" appropriate for a control operating the cab marker lamps and some of the trailer lamps on the basis that it is consistant with the identification of the nonregulated interrupter control (see Background section) and readily recognizable and decipherable by the average truck driver. White requests an interpretation that such a control and labeling does fall within the ambit of FMVSS-101 and is in conformance.

Sincerely,

J. W. Lawrence Manager, Reliability & Government Standards

JWL/ek

ID: nht80-2.2

DATE: 04/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 April 15, 1980

Mr. Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc. 100 Gruner Road Cheektowaga, New York 14227

Dear Mr. Lenda:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a device to prevent siphoning of fuel from trucks and buses which your company intends to market. You seek a Federal endorsement stating that this anti-siphon device is in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are currently no Federal safety standards that are directly applicable to a device such as yours. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), applies only to completed motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. It does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following barrier crash tests.

Although Safety Standard No. 301 would not be directly applicable to the anti-siphon device, use of the device may give rise to responsibilities under our regulations. Any person who alters a motor vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., first purchase by a consumer) is required to place an additional label or tag on the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, continues to be in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Therefore, if a vehicle is altered prior to its first purchase by the addition of your anti-siphon device, the person installing the device would have to certify that the vehicle is still in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. (Remember, however, that Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to vehicles having GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, so an alterer's label would not be required if the device is installed on a heavy truck or bus).

In addition to the requirements for persons who alter new vehicles prior to their first purchase, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. Therefore, none of these persons could modify a used vehicle by installing the anti-siphon device if that installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 or any other safety standards.

Whether or not the anti-siphon device could be installed on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 is a determination which must be made by your company or by the person making the installation. The agency does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine and certify the compliance, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 6, 1980

N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel Room 400 7th Southwestern Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

In order to combat the ever increasing fuel theft problem that school bus and truck fleet operators are experiencing, we have designed and developed an anti-siphon device for these applications. Enclosed is a photograph of one of the early prototypes.

The final production model is similar but there are some subtle changes in the spring shape and cage design.

Installation of the device is as simple as screwing on a gas cap. A 2 cc vial of Loctite RC-680 will be supplied with each unit. This special grade of Loctite is unaffected by gasoline or diesel fuel. It serves a twofold purpose: (1) it forms an airtight seal between the threads of the filler pipe and the unit and (2) locks the threads to form a permanent installation. With this grade of Loctite on the threads, over 500 ft-lbs of torque is required to remove the unit. This is more-than one man can exert using a 6 foot bar.

We currently have six models ready to fit the various lengths and thread configurations of different fuel tanks. The following table shows their application:

Gas Cap with Gas Cap with Internal Threads External threads

Inside 3" to 4" SK-1-34 SK-2-34 Length of 6" to 7" SK-1-67 SK-2-67 Filler Pipe 9" to 10" SK-1-910 SK-2-910

When installed, the anti-siphon device becomes an integral part of the filler neck and adds only 7/8" to its overall length which is well within the protection of the tank's safety cage. Also, the original fused safety fuel cap is used the same as was before the installation of the anti-siphon device.

It is important that the proper model be applied for maximum security and ease of refuelling. The unit is designed to provide free flow of fuel into the tank when applied to the proper length filler pipe. If, however, the wrong length device is used, one of two situations can occur:

1 - A long anti-siphon device (SK-1-910) used in a short 3" filler neck: - no security will result.

2 - A short anti-siphon device (SK-1-34) used in a long 9" filler neck: - fuel security will be maintained however excessive back pressure may result when filling the tank causing automatic gas handles to kick off.

In both of the above cases, the safe operation of the vehicle will remain intact. Our tests of this device in actual vehicles has convinced us that this device meets all the requirements set forth in Federal Standard 301 with respect to fuel system integrity.

Since the majority of the potential users of this device operate vehicles which are subject to D.O.T. inspection (primarily school buses), I am seeking Federal endorsement to the effect that the use of our anti-siphon device is in full compliance with all Federal Safety standards.

If there are further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at (716) 631-8130 or (716) 896-6105.

Please reply at your ealiest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

WAREHOUSE BUS PARTS, INC.

Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President

DEL:gd

Enclosure

ID: nht80-2.20

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 24, 1980

Mr. James W. Lawrence White Motor Corporation 35129 Curtis Boulevard Eastlake, Ohio 44094

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letters dated March 11, 1980, and March 21, 1980, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Your first question relates to the number sequentially assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer as required by S5.5.3.3 of the standard. You wish to know whether after assigning a number to a vehicle prior to its manufacture, the number may be cancelled if the vehicle is not actually manufactured. The answer is yes. This is permissible under the standard so long as the number is not reassigned to another vehicle, thereby destroying the sequence.

You also wish to know if White may assign a vehicle identification number to glider kits which it manufactures. Section 571.7(e) and (f) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations set forth the criteria for determining whether the vehicle created from a glider kit is to be considered a new vehicle or the original vehicle. If the vehicle is considered new, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirement that a new vehicle identification number be assigned (Standard No. 115). If, however, the vehicle is not considered new, the vehicle identification number originally issued for the vehicle must be the one that is assigned. (See section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.)

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 11, 1980 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS-115 Request for Interpretation - S 4.5.3.3 Sequential Assignment of Serial Numbers

Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation sequentially assigns serial numbers by customer to enhance problem reporting, repair parts purchasing, vehicle licensing and defect recall. When a customer orders 50 vehicles, the attributes of which are identical, the 50 serial numbers will be sequential and assigned only to those vehicles. During the manufacturing process, if all or part of the order is cancelled, the serial numbers assigned to the unbuilt vehicles are cancelled and not reissued for any other vehicle. The remaining numbers as well as those in preceeding and subsequent customer orders are therefore sequential even though not every number is used.

The preamble discussion on page 36451 of the August 17, 1978 Federal Register addressing the issue of some manufacturers desiring to keep confidential the total number of vehicles manufactured is, in our opinion, a corrolary to this condition. White believes, and requests confirmation that, the requirement for sequential assignment does not also require the use of every number in the sequence.

Sincerely,

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

James W. Lawrence, Manager Engineering Reliability & Government Standards Dept.

JWL/cjb

March 21, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115 Request for Interpretation Vehicle Identification Numbers for Glider Kits

Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation manufactures Glider Kits which are sold through its Service Department for use in rebuilding used and wrecked vehicles. FMVSS-115 does not apply to these kits because they are not new vehicles as manufactured.

There are, however, some states which allow the rebuilt vehicle to carry the identity of the kit, rather than that of the scrapped vehicle. To facilitate the registration of these vehicles, White issues a Manufacturers' Statement of Origin and a vehicle identification number. Registration as a White also provides traceability for recall should the need arise.

White believes, and requests confirmation that, although the standard does not apply to these vehicles, the standard does not prohibit the application of VIN to a Glider Kit.

Sincerely,

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

James W. Lawrence, Manager Engineering Reliability & Government Standards Dept.

JWL/cjb

ID: nht80-2.21

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing.

The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

McCREARY TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 7, 1980

Richard J. Hipolit -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires.

Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104.

Would you please confirm this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Eddy -- Manager, Quality Assurance

ID: nht80-2.22

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 24, 1980 IN REPLY REFER TO: NOA-30

Mr. Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance McCreary Tire & Rubber Company Indiana, Pennsylvania 15701

Dear Mr. Eddy:

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing.

The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel ATTENTION: Mr. Richard J. Hipolit National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 02590 Dear Sir:

We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires.

Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104.

Would you please confirm this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance

RAE/pel

ID: nht80-2.23

DATE: 04/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Quester Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 29, 1980

NOA-30

J.P Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266

Dear Mr. Koziatek:

This responds to your letter of January 25, 1980, requesting an interpretation of section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standards No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) specifies that in the 20 mph test of forward facing child restraints with fixed or movable surfaces designed to restrain the child, the restraint system's belts are not to be attached "unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." You asked whether the crotch strap used in your Kantwet "One Step" Model-400 child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield used on that device. After reviewing the diagrams and description contained in your letter, I conclude that the crotch strap is not an integral part of the movable surface and thus must not be connected during the 20 mph test.

Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

The crotch strap used in the Kantwet "One Step" is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used. In contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the possibility that the upper torso restraint could be detached from the adjustment device. We urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the belts permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment device.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re: FMVSS 213-80 CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION KANTWET "ONE STEP" MODEL 400

This letter is written to provide NHTSA with the rationale leading to the design and development of the new Questor Juvenile Furniture Company (QJFC) child restraint system (Kantwet "One Step" Model 400) and to request NHTSA's confirmation of the manner in which this particular child restraint system is to be tested to determine its compliance with FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 13, 1979. Most important, we have set forth information substantiating the fact that the crotch strap incorporated in our new combined harness/restraint is "an integral part of the fixed or movable surface" under paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, thereby permitting the fastening of this integral strap during test configuration II.

Much has been written about the lack of use of child restraint systems, their cost, and their incorrect or incomplete installation/use. These concerns are well documented and have been expressed by the general public, concerned groups interested in promoting improved child passenger safety, and NHTSA. NHTSA has obviously deliberated long and with great effort in an attempt to develop rulemaking that would address those aspects of child restraint system design and usage that increase child passenger protection when properly designed child restraint systems are correctly installed in passenger vehicles. FMVSS 213-80, as published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1979, also attempts to protect the child passenger by requiring child restraint systems to meet certain minimum performance standards when they are improperly or incompletely installed in a passenger vehicle. While it is impossible to predict all potential incomplete or incorrect installations of child restraint systems in passenger vehicles, it has become apparent that certain omissions in child restraint system installations occur at a relatively high rate.

Tests have shown that child restraint systems installed with a top tether strap do reduce the occupant's relative head excursion, however these systems are often installed by the consumer without the top tether strap. The convenience armrest incorporated in some systems is also frequently misused in that it is placed in its lowered position with its restraining strap fastened, but the harness straps which are always part of such a system and which provide restraint for the system's occupant are often left unfastened. FMVSS 213-80 has considered these two improper installations of restraint systems and requires minimum occupant protection when the systems are tested under these improper conditions.

Devices for seating children in passenger vehicles were available to the consumer long before the advent of NHTSA and safety regulations for automobile occupants. Prior to NHTSA rulemaking in 1971, the majority of such child seating devices provided no protection for their occupants in the event of even low-speed vehicle accidents. However, since 1971, and particularly since 1974, there has been significant improvement in the crashworthiness of products available for seating children in passenger vehicles. The improvement has been such that child seats for automobile can now be truly classified as child restraints or, as some have suggested, "child protectors."

QJFC and its predecessor companies have been in the business of manufacturing and marketig child seating devices and restraint systems for more than 25 years. QJFC, perhaps more so than anyone else, has recognized the tremendous improvement in occupant protection now available to the consumer with crash-tested child restraints.

Likewise, QJFC has seen considerable shrinkage of the annual sales of child estraiit systems as their crashworthiness has improved and their cost has increased, as compared with the child seating devices formerly manufactured. QJFC has been concerned throughout this transition period that the consumer is not always interested in safety when he has a choice to make or that he is not fully cognizant of the possible consequences when a crash-tested child restraint system is, first, not purchased and, second, not used properly when purchased.

Since 1972, QJFC has designed and introduced five child restraint systems to the marketplace. Each of these systems was designed to meet crash testing criteria. As the state of the art improved and as more meaningful testing criteria were learned or published, the individual restraint systems were re-designed or discontinued, to be succeeded by designs which improved crashworthiness. Concurrently with efforts to improve the crashworthiness of restraint systems, QJFC recognized the sensitivity of the marketplace to the cost and the ease of use of child restraint systems. This led to the design of the Kantwet "Care Seat," the first restraint system marketed which provided crash protection for the occupant from birth through 43 pounds. The system was designed to (and did) meet the maximum relative head excursion of 18 inches forward of the forwardmost point of the car seat back without the use of a top tether anchor strap.

To provide a crash-tested restraint system for children from birth to 17 pounds, at the lowest possible cost. QJFC designed and marketed the Infanseat "Dyn-O-Mite" child restraint. This product, with its attractive pricing and broad distribution, has been well-received by the consumer and has served to re-emphasize the sensitivity of the marketplace to price and ease of use.

These comments are offered to indicate the awareness that QJFC has of the marketability and proper installation of child restraint systems. In addition to our own design and market experiences, we agree with the objectives NHTSA has established to improve the performance of the restraints, increase the use, and minimize their misuse.

To this end, QJFC has taken the sum total of its 25 years of marketing experience and combined this with NHTSA's objectives to design its sixth new crashworthy child restraint system since 1972. This system, the Kantwet "One Step" car seat, Model 400, is of a design that is a significant departure from previously available child restraint systems, thus incorporating features not necessarily familiar to NHTSA or the general public. Certain aspects of the design of the "One Step" will require interpretation in order to test the restraint properly against FMVSS 213-80.

The features of the Kantwet "One Step" design can best be understood by referring to various drawings in conjunction with the description that follows. The drawings are enclosed with this letter.

The system consists of three main parts: the tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, and a harness/shield restraint. These are shown in Figure 1. Combining these three main parts allows the assembly to be used as a rear-facing system for infants and as an upright forward-facing system for children who weigh more than 17 pounds but less than 43 pounds, with this mode also capable of being used in a forward-facing reclined position. Thus, a single purchase enables the consumer to provide protection for his child from birth through 42 pounds in weight.

Dynamic testing has been conducted on prototype and production mode is of the "One Step," and the tests have indicated excellent compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS 213-80 in all three installation positions. These dynamic tests have been conducted at a simulated impact of 30 mph, and the average maximum relative head excursion achieved without the use of a top tether strap has been less than 32 inches. Head injury criteria and average chest accelerations have been well within requirements on those occasions when instrumented test dummies were used.

These favorable test results are attributable to the combination of a harness and an impact shield restraint system where in the most desirable features of a five-point harness and an impact shield have been combined. The single greatest criticism by the consumer of an impact shield-type of restraint has always been the difficulty of keeping the occupant within the system. The freedom of movement available to the occupant of an impact shield restraint allows the occupant not only to climb out of the system but also, if he remains in it, to be out of the ideal position to absorb effectively the forces imposed during an accident. A five-point harness restraint system distributes crash forces satisfactorily to the occupant; however, the webbing of such a system, with continued use, becomes entangled and crossed over itself, and it begins to "rope" or twist upon itself. This roping and twisting of the webbing thus imposes higher localized loading to the occupant in a crash; also, in many cases, the consumer fails to utilize the five-point harness when placing a child in such a system because he does not wish to take the time to untangle and straighten the webbing first.

The "One Step" restraint system integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. This arrangement provides some unique features and advantages not heretofore available with child restraint systems. These advantages are described below and shown in the appended drawings.

1. The security of a five-point harness system is provided, thus retaining the occupant, with the further guarantee that the occupant will be properly positioned in the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface is available with the impact shield located at the lower torso area, to distribute impact forces over as large an area as possible.

3. While the impact shield is designed to distribute impact forces to the lower torso area, it is also shaped in such a manner and positioned so that its lower surface rests against the occupant's upper thigh. This placement eliminates the need for a separate lap belt assembly for restraint of the lower torso. Thus, the possibility of a lap belt assembly's roping, twisting, and cutting into the pelvic area has been completely obviated. The intrusion of lap belts into the hip joint of test dummies has frequently been observed during crash testing in spite of the use of a crotch strap on a five-point harness restraint.

4. The impact shield, in addition to serving the aforementioned functions, also simulates the buckle of a five-point harness system in that it accepts the ends of the upper torso belts and provides a means of connecting the crotch strap to itself. Thus, the impact shield serves a multiplicity of purposes, as well as providing a means of "shielding" the occupant's torso and extremities against certain metal hardware items.

Reference to Figures 1 and 2 will highlight the similarities between a conventional five-point harness restraint system and integrated "One Step" combination harness/shield restraint system. The impact shield of the "One Step" essentially replaces both the retaining buckle and the lap belt of a typical five-point harness system, as shown in Figure 2. Both the impact shield and the buckle serve the same purpose of accumulating the belts and of fastening them together.

5. The belts of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system to and around the impact shield so that their "lie flat" position is guaranteed. Reference to Figures 1 and 3 clearly illustrates this. When the impact shield is raised or lowered for entrance or egress of the occupant, the shield maintains this "lie flat" condition of the upper torso belts, preventing any possibility of their roping, twisting, or becoming entangled with themselves or any other belting. Figure 4 shows the impact shield being raised, with the upper torso belts being lifted simultaneously from the occupant.

6. Since the upper torso belts and the crotch strap are sewed together to form a continuous loop about the restraint's occupant, adjustment of the upper torso belts automatically brings the crotch strap to its corrent length and the impact shield to its correct position for the size of the occupant. The restraint system can thus "grow" with the occupant or adjust to the amount of clothing worn by the child since the impact shield contacts its upper thighs.

7. Reference to Figure 3 shows the location of metal adjustment hardware on the underside of the impact shield. It can be seen that all hardware is away from the occupant and does not contact him. This feature eliminates the possibility of over-heated metal components burning the occupant on hot summer days, a situation that NHTSA has requested manufacturers to correct.

8. Further reference to Figure 3 shows the buckle which fastens the entire harness/shield restraint system together under the impact shield and therefore out of reach of the occupant. This feature prevents the child from purposely or inadvertently releasing the buckle and thus defeating the restraint. NHTSA has identified the release of buckles on five-point harness systems as being a significant problem and has tried to minimize the occurrence by requiring manufacturers to have a minimum release force for their buckles. The "One Step" restraint system has thus gone "one step" beyond NHTSA's requirements and eliminated accidental buckle release entirely.

9. Adjustment of the entire restraint system is accomplished simply by pulling on the ends of the upper torso restraint belts, as shown in Figure 3. As stated previously, this action adjusts the entire system to "fit" the occupant correctly and position him in the location and posture intended to absorb impact forces best. Further, once the adjustment is made, it cannot be loosened accidentally by the occupant, not only because the adjustment means is located out of reach but also because a separate and distinct secondary action is needed to pull the belts back from their adjusted length. To loosen the restraint's adjusted length of belting, it is necessary to lift one portion of the belt-adjusting mechanism, as shown in Figure 5, before the belting can be loosened.

Two important advantages result from this feature. First, the child cannot purposely or accidentally loosen the restraint through his movements or through playing with the strap slides that are the usual method of adjusting harness belting. Thus the child is always properly positioned to absorb impact forces during an accident. Second, the restraint system need not be adjusted each time it is occupied. Once the system has been adjusted to fit the child, the same "fit" will be available the next time the restraint is used since it will retain its length of webbing until the webbing length is purposely changed through the conscious actions shown in Figure 5.

10. Figure 6 is an enlarged view of the hardware as it is located under the impact shield. This view illustrates the routing of the upper torso belting through the adjustment hardware and also shows that the hardware itself is permanently fastened to the shield, thus preventing disengagement and possible loss of hardware from the system.

The combination of the above features makes the "One Step" child restraint the most convenient system to use. When the impact shield is raised, all belting is lifted clear of the seating surface, thus presenting an unobstructed area for the occupant. Once the child is seated, there is no need to search for belting or hardware under him. When the impact shield is lowered, the upper torso belts are brought into correct position over the child's shoulders and held in correct alignment to prevent their slipping from his shoulders since the belts are "fixed" in locations at either end of the upper torso portion of the belts. When not occupied, the belts are held in proper relationship to themselves and to the system itself, which precludes their roping, entanglement, and twisting. Once placed in a vehicle, the "One Step" can remain in the car, secured by the auto's lap belt, regardless of its position either forward-facing or rearward-facing, since the lap belt is routed under the restraint system's seating surface for all the restraint's positions. (Most other rearward-facing restraint systems are designed so that the vehicle belt used to retain the system in the vehicle passes over the occupant, which means the lap belt must be detached for the child's egress, with subsequent restraint usage requiring re-connection and adjustment of the vehicle belt.) Once the "One Step" is adjusted to "fit" the child, it need not be "re-fitted" each time it is used unless the child has increased in stature or wears bulky winter clothing since the adjustment mechanism retains the length of the adjusted belts until they are consciously altered.

**INSERT FIGURES**

QJFC believes the Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint system to be the most convenient crash-tested child restraint system available for use by children from birth through 42 pounds in weight. It is believed that this restraint incorporates the best knowledge and experience QJFC has gained in over 25 years of manufacturing and marketing juvenile products plus the knowledge NHTSA has provided to manufacturers of child restraint systems regarding the crashworthiness that such systems must provide.

It is QJFC's belief that when tested according to test configuration II, installation of the "One Step" system (as described in paragraph S6.1.2.3.1 (c) of FMVSS 213, published in the Federal Register of December 13, 1979) permits fastening of the integral crotch strap of the harness/shield restraint. NHTSA confirmation of this installation procedure for conducting test configuration II is requested.

I would be pleased to visit NHTSA personally to describe and discuss the "One Step" child restraint further, should that be desired.

Yours truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services

Attachments

JPK:MG

*Insert Figure 3, 4, 5, and 6 Here

ID: nht80-2.24

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: WOW--Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Robert Fondiller, President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York, New York 10019

Dear Mr. Fondiller:

This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in which you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.

This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles, pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting those wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeler vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.

The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply. If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.

I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.

This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.

If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 18, 1980

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: 3-Wheeled Vehicle

1. We have designed and are completing the building of a 3-wheeled vehicle--which we plan to manufacture in 3 models: electric, gasoline, and hybrid.

2. Would such a 2-passenger, 600-lb. enclosed vehicle be classified as a car? a motorcycle? or other?

3. Could it be licensed for street use? highway use?

4. If we were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, would our vehicle be considered a 3-wheel or 4-wheel vehicle? Would a double rear wheel affect the answers to any of the foregoing questions? Thank you for your prompt reply, as we are nearing the finish line.

Cordially,

Robert Fondiller, President

RF:rp Enc. WOW! Lit.

ID: nht80-2.25

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sleek-Craft Boats

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980

Mr. Warren Robbins Manager, Automobile Division Sleek-Craft Boats P.O. Box 3563 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Robbins:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, as it would apply to a new sports car that your company intends to market. You state that the side doors of this vehicle design can meet the "intermediate" and "peak" crush resistance requirements of the standard but not the "initial" crush resistance requirement because of an outer fiberglass veneer component of the door. You ask whether the vehicle can be exempt from this "initial" requirement since the door can withstand the maximum forces required by the standard.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 214 requires doors to comply with all three stages of the crush resistance requirements and there is no provision for an averaging of the crush resistance abilities. Although inboard mounted structures may be effective in preventing intrusion if the door has a large cross section, with a correspondingly large distance between the protective structure and the inner panel, the standard reflects a determination by the agency that doors afford the greatest protection panel as possible. Additionally, the "initial" crush resistance requirements are necessary to ensure that the entire door system is structurally sound. This is particularly important because of the risk of occupant ejection if door hinges and latches separated during an accident, allowing the door to fly open.

Although the relief you seek cannot be granted by interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, there are provisions for temporary exemptions from Safety Standards or portions of safety standards under certain circumstances; such as economic hardship. I am enclosing a copy of the regulation governing temporary exemptions for your information (49 CFR Part 555). After reviewing this regulation, you may wish to petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the "initial" crush resistance requirements of the standard. The regulation explains the procedures you must follow.

If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 13, 1980

National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: FMVSS #214

Gentlemen:

Our firm is in the process of building a limited production sports car. We expect the automobile to comply with all Federal Safety Standards. As the automobile is not designed, we anticipate a problem with FMVSS-214, "Side Door Strength." The purpose of this letter is to secure an opinion from the Office of Chief Counsel before the actual testing is done.

Definition of anticipated problem:

The standard required the structure of the door to withstand 2250 pounds of applied pressure over the initial 6 inches of travel, (53.1). We foresee no problem in complying and exceeding 53.2 and 53.3 of the standard.

The problem with compliance with 53.2 is that the side doors are 10" thick. The outer-most 5 inches are decorative fiberglass veneer and are used as air ducts for the radiators which are mounted in the rear.

The inner 5" of the door constitute the frame work and intrusion protection. This protection is very substantial consisting of a triangularly shaped structure constructed from .120 wall 1020 steel. The accompanyiny drawing clarifies this intrusion barrier's location and mounting relative to other frame structures. As the drawing demonstrates, our intent is to provide very substantial protection from side impacts.

The intrusion barrier (c), is supported vertically by the door support (d), which itself is a substantial member (11" x 2" channel, .090 thick 1020 mild steel). The barrier is prevented from entry into the passenger compartment by a roll bar in the rear and roll hoop in front. These members are also of .120 wall 1020 mild steel and are cross braced from the platform frame.

Opinion requested:

Petitioner, Performance Products Inc., requests that the requirements of FMVSS #214 section 53.1 be waived and that the automobile produced by Performance Products be deemed in compliance if the provisions of 53.2 and 53.3 of FMVSS #214 are successfully performed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest regards,

Warren Robbins Manager Automobile Division

Enclosure

WR/ca

ID: nht80-2.26

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Missouri

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Woody Fitzmaurice Supervisor, Pupil Transportation State of Missouri P.O. Box 480 Jefferson City Missouri 65102

Dear Mr. Fitzmaurice:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the State of Missouri has authority under Federal law to specify location requirements for fuel tanks on school buses.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) preempts, with one exception, State motor vehicle safety standards of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal safety standard governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance. Thus, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), would preempt State requirements of general applicability governing the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 301. The specification of tank location in the Missouri requirements is intended to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system and, therefore, would be regarded by the agency as relating to the same aspect of performance as the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate the location of fuel tanks.

The second sentence of section 103(d) of the Act clarifies that the limitation on State safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions such as the Board of Education could specify additional fuel system requirements, such as tank location, in the case of public school buses, but not in the case of commercial buses. The State requirements are not permitted, however, to prevent the school bus or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. Therefore, the school bus manufacturer would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 301 regardless of the State requirements.

I hope this has answered all of your questions. However, if you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992)

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 2, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ATTENTION: Mr. Hugh Oates NOA-30 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

The State Board of Education has statutory authority, in Missouri, to make manufacturing specifications for school buses. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the administrative arm of the State Board of Education, has always required that fuel tanks be placed on the right outside frame rail of the chassis. In our review of Federal Safety Standard 301 we found no mention of placement; however, we did find, in one preamble, that it might be construed that states would not have the authority to require placement of the fuel tanks in a specific location.

We would appreciate a more detailed and thorough explanation as to where the authority lies. You may or may not be aware that during the first week of May the National Conference on School Bus Specifications will be held and your reply will be used at this meeting.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Woody Fitzmaurice, Supervisor Pupil Transportation

WF:pc

cc: Bruce McGuire National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Bob Burgess Missouri Division of Highway Safety