ID: nht80-3.28

DATE: 07/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 31 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 the request for interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, made at your May 20, 1980, meeting with members of the agency's staff. At the meeting, you demonstrated a prototype of a Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint with an automatic movable restraining shield. You asked whether the agency will attach the crotch strap of that child restraint during the 20 mile per hour test specified in S6.1.2.1.2 of the standard for child restraints with movable restraining shields. The answer is yes, the agency will attach the crotch strap during that testing.

The child restraint system you demonstrated to the agency on May 20, 1980, has a movable shield attached by two arms to either side of the child restraint. The movable shield is spring loaded, so that the shield must be mechanically held down in front of the child or the spring will automatically raise the shield above the child's head. In the lower seating surface of the child restraint is a crotch strap that is intended to be manually attached to an anchorage point mounted on the movable shield. If the crotch strap is attached to the movable shield, the shield is held in place in front of the child.

The system is equipped with two upper torso belts that pass through the system's seat back and are attached to an adjustment and anchorage device that is permanently affixed to the movable shield. When the shield is lowered so that it is in front of the child, the two upper torso belts are brought over the shoulders of the child. Thus, with the possible exception of having to adjust the upper torso belts, attaching the crotch strap to the movable shield is the single step necessary to fully restrain a child.

Your specific question was whether the crotch strap used with this child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield. On April 29, 1980, the agency responded to your prior request for interpretation about the crotch strap on the same child restraint with a movable shield that is not spring loaded. The agency said that the crotch strap was not an integral part of the movable shield. The presence of the spring-loaded shield does not change the nature of the crotch strap. It is still a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the child restraint is used. Thus, under our prior interpretation, the crotch strap as used in the design shown us on May 20, 1980, is not an integral part of the shield.

The rationale for the integral belt requirement involves the principal misuse of child restraints which is the failure to attach buckles. This failure is often associated with child restraints having movable surfaces that can be positioned in front of the child. Parents mistakenly assume that such surfaces by themselves would provide sufficient protection and thus do not buckle the harness system in the restraint. To reduce that misuse, the agency established the requirement that belts may be attached during the testing of restraints equipped with movable shields only if they are integral parts of the shield. Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they remain attached to the restraining shield whether or not the restraint is in use and since the need to buckle those belts is more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. Thus, the integral belts are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

This rationale applies to belts on a child restraint having movable restraining shields that are not spring-loaded. It does not, however, apply to a nonintegral belt on a restraint having a spring-loaded movable restraining shield, if that shield can be held in place only by attaching the nonintegral belt so as to fully and properly restrain the child. The spring-loaded movable restraining shield in your system will not stay in place in front of the child unless the crotch strap is attached. If the crotch strap is not fastened, the movable restraining shield automatically rises above the child's head to signal that the buckle is unfastened and the child is unrestrained. When the movable restraining shield with its integral upper torso belts is positioned in front of the child and the crotch strap is fastened, the child is properly restrained. Requiring the crotch strap to be an integral part of the movable restraining shield is unnecessary in such a system. Our position would be otherwise if the spring-loaded movable restraining shield could be held in place in front of the child without fully and properly restraining the child, such as by only partially attaching nonintegral belts and thus only partially restraining the child.

Further, the agency did not have your type of spring-loaded restraining shield and belt system in mind during the rulemaking proceeding on child restraints. That type of shield and belt system were neither contemplated by the agency nor discussed by any of the comments on the proposal. Accordingly, we plan to issue an interpretive amendment providing that the integral belt requirement does not apply to a nonintegral belt or belts that attach to a spring-loaded movable restraining shield if the shield cannot be held in place in front of the child without the child being fully and properly restrained.

The agency is concerned, however, about the durability of a spring-loaded system such as yours. To properly perform its function the spring must have sufficient force to slowly, but repeatedly, raise the movable shield. Further, since child restraints are traditionally handed down from child to child and family to family, the spring must be able to withstand several years of repeated use. We urge you to design the spring so that it will have sufficient durability to perform satisfactorily over the foreseeable lifetime of the child restraint.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.29

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baker Equipment Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Deeter Baker Equipment Engineering Company P.O. Box 25609 Richmond, Virginia 23260

Dear Mr. Deeter:

This is in reply to your letter of June 23, 1980, to Mr. Finkelstein of this agency.

You have enclosed a drawing showing clearance lamps mounted on the widest and highest part of a truck body but in that location their light causes undesirable reflections in the truck's rearview mirrors. You have asked if a relocation to the truck cab would be an acceptable substitution since many of the chassis-cabs you now receive have a combination turn signal/front side marker lamp mounted on the fenders, "which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement of this lamp".

We have no objection to relocation of the clearance lamps to the cab on the configuration you have described since the utility body is not higher than the truck cab and the position of the front lamp is, for all practical purposes, as wide as the utility body. This is a location frequently used for clearance lamps and we believe that they would be perceived as such, even though the truck body is slightly wider than the extremities of the cab. Because a potential hazard to the driver would be diminished by this relocation, we believe that this would better meet the needs of motor vehicle safety. Further, in the relocated position, the clearance lamps would not be blocked by the front fender mounted combination lamps.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 23, 1980

Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

I had previously written you concerning the subject of clearance lights on the front of utility bodies in my letter of October 19, 1980.

Your answer of November 19, 1979 indicated that this request would be considered along with a TBEA petition to revise FMVSS 108.

Have any changes or decisions been rendered? I'm particularly interested since many of the chassis / cabs we are now receiving have a combination turn and front side marker light mounted on the chassis / cab fender (position 4a.), which almost blocks the front clearance lamp on the body, and would seem to negate the requirement for this lamp.

Your comments will be greatly appreciated.

Cordially,

John Deeter Director of Operations

JD/cm Attachment

ID: nht80-3.3

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flyer Industries Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 7, 1980, letter asking whether you would be exercising due care if you alter the test procedures in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You propose to change the brake linings that are currently used on some of your vehicles. You would prefer to conduct decelerometer and stopping distance tests to assure compliance of your vehicles and dispense with the dynamometer test requirements.

The test requirements of Standard No. 121 are a means of establishing that you are in compliance with the performance requirements of the standard. However, like all of the agency's safety standards, it is not legally required that a manufacturer conduct the tests as they are stated in the standard if the manufacturer has an alternate procedure such as computer simulation, mathematical calculation, etc. which it is confident can equally prove the compliance of its vehicles. It is up to the manufacturer to establish in its own mind that any alternate procedure is an exercise of due care adequate to assure it would conform to the standard if the actual tests were conducted.

With respect to the particular test that you propose to conduct, the agency notes that the stopping distance and decelerometer tests are used to test for several aspects of brake performance that are regulated by the standard. The dynamometer tests are used to establish the fade resistance and recovery performance of the brake linings. The agency does not believe that stopping distance tests alone can measure, in particular, the fade resistance of the brake linings. Accordingly, we do not believe that you could certify your vehicle in compliance without some tests or analysis for fade resistance. This does not mean that you must conduct the dynamometer test, however, if you have another technique which you believe adequately measures the fade resistance of the linings.

SINCERELY,

FLYER INDUSTRIES LIMITED

April 7, 1980

The Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

We presently manufacture a transit coach certified for FMVSS 121 at a providing ground. Due to customer request, a brake lining deviation from the certified ABB80 to Carlisle B33 is required. Local dynamometer testing is extremely difficult.

Our proposal is to conduct deoelerometer and stopping distance tests to compare lining performance. Full service tests at both loads and on both surface co-efficients would be done, as these were most marginal during the proving ground test. (See charted results.) It is not planned to outfit the new linings with themocouples. If performances are as good or better than for the linings that were certified, we would take this as sufficient evidence of compliance.

Please advise if such testing, fully documented, would be considered due care. Prompt reply to enable test scheduling, will be greatly appreciated.

Todd Smith

CC: B. MOSS

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.30

DATE: 08/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Lloyd Bentson, United States Senator

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 10, 1980, forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Bob Lacy. Mr. Lacy, a Ford dealer, requested Ford Motor Company to offer locking gasoline caps as an option on all future cars and trucks because of the growing problem of gasoline theft. Ford informed Mr. Lacy that it could not do so because it would require testing all its vehicles twice for compliance with the Federal fuel system safety standard, i.e., with the regular gasoline cap and with the locking cap.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements to ensure the safety of motor vehicle fuel systems. When subjected to a barrier impact crash test, vehicles cannot show fuel leakage beyond certain specified amounts. The standard is only a performance standard, however, and manufacturers are permitted to use any vehicle design they choose, including any gasoline cap they desire, as long as the standard is met.

Ford's statement that "in order to comply with FMVSS requirements for fuel systems, we would be required to test all our vehicles twice" is incorrect. Standard No. 301 does not require testing; it only requires that the vehicle meet the performance requirements that are specified. The manufacturer's legal responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles do in fact comply with these performance requirements. Ford may feel it necessary to crash test vehicles with both types of gasoline caps, in order to establish due care, but doing so is not required by the standard. Other methods could be used to determine if the varying gasoline caps would affect compliance. Further, even if a manufacturer desires to do some testing, it is difficult to imagine that the design of the gas caps used for different Ford cars differ sufficiently to warrant testing every type of Ford car.

Finally, I would like to point out that if Ford believes crash testing is necessary for each type of gasoline cap used, it could choose to offer only locking caps rather than offering only regular caps. I suggest that Mr. Lacy contact Ford again to determine why they chose regular caps over locking caps, given Ford's decision that it only wanted to perform tests using one type cap.

If we can provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

ID: nht80-3.31

DATE: 08/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction - North Dakota

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1980, letter asking whether a ramp device used in school buses for the transportation of the handicapped would be in conflict with the Federal safety standard for school bus emergency exits if the ramp partially blocked the rear exit when it folded into the bus. You indicate in your letter that the ramp would make the exit release mechanism difficult to operate for small children. Although your letter provides few details concerning the ramp, we conclude that it probably would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the emergency exit regulation.

Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements, of course, is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, we have preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. Similarly, it appears to us that the ramp you describe would provide an impediment to emergency vehicle exits and would not permit easy access to the release mechanism. Accordingly, we conclude that a bus with such a ramp as original equipment would not comply with the Federal safety standards. We note further that the ramp could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard. Nothing, however, precludes a school from adding the ramps to its own vehicles except the possibility of increased liability in the event a child is injured in an accident involving the bus.

There are many possible devices designed to aid the transportation of the handicapped that would not conflict with the standards. For example, many vehicles have lifts designed for handicapped use. It might also be possible to have a ramp at the rear door that stows under the vehicle when not in use rather than in the passenger compartment. Any of these alternatives would be better than a ramp that might block the emergency exit.

SINCERELY,

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Department of Public Instruction

July 3, 1980

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton: A bus used to transport handicapped people has a ramp device at the rear door of the bus. The ramp is bolted to the floor of the bus and folds to be brought inside the bus for travel. The ramp remains in front of the door when the door is closed. The door latch can be reached so the door could be opened from the inside and the ramp pushed out for use as an emergency exit, although this would be fairly difficult for a very young child.

We have been asked if a device of this type would be in conflict with the Safety Standard for emergency exits for school buses.

Can any type of device be located inside the emergency door as original equipment on a school bus based on the Safety Standard for emergency exits?

Thank you for your help.

ROLLAND LARSON, Director

Pupil Transportation

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.32

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp."

By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable.

We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action.

Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so.

SINCERELY,

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

July 2, 1980

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days.

Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.33

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Airstream

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 13, 1980, letter asking whether your company would be considered a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the labeling requirements of Part 567, Certification. You indicate that you take another manufacturer's incomplete chassis with a motor and add to it a cab and body with bumpers, mirrors, and exterior trim. This vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for final completion. We would not consider you to be a chassis-cab manufacturer subject to the certification requirements.

As you know, a chassis-cab is defined in Part 567 as "an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo carrying, work performing, or load bearing components to perform its intended functions." The incomplete vehicle upon which your manufacturing operation begins is simply a chassis without the cab. As such, that vehicle is subject to the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568, but it is not subject to the chassis-cab certification requirements.

Your modification adds on a bus body which then needs final work before it can be used. Since you do not complete the occupant compartment as required by the definition of "chassis-cab", you are not required to attach a certification label. You are simply an intermediate manufacturer. The final-stage manufacturer would attach the only label to the vehicle.

ID: nht80-3.34

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. It is your impression that the standard specified different AS numbers for glazing in vehicles depending on whether the vehicle is capable of exceeding speeds of 20 mph. You inquired whether such a speed capability distinction applies to "off-highway" vehicles such as a 180 degree backhoe/loader is not a motor vehicle, the standard is inapplicable. Our last letter to you, dated April 10, 1980, explained which vehicles are included under the definition of motor vehicles.

Although the vehicle's speed capability has no bearing on what type glazing is required, it may be a factor in determining the applicability of our standards. As stated in our last letter, vehicles incapable of attaining speeds in excess of 20 mph and whose configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles and are thus outside of our statutory authority.

ID: nht80-3.35

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Nick Oliver

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your July 25, 1980, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning your plans to rehabilitate school buses.

As you stated, your initial program of bus rehabilitation appears only cosmetic in nature. You will do some maintenance work on the vehicles and repaint and letter them. Your only responsibility in this type of operation is not knowingly to render inoperative the compliance of the bus with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The type of operations that you would be performing are not likely to render inoperative any safety standard of which we are aware.

Your long-term plans are to make more substantial modifications of school buses. As Mr. Tilton said, if you install a new chassis on a used body it is the same as manufacturing a new motor vehicle. You would be required to comply with all of the new safety standards applicable to school buses. This would be very difficult when you use a bus body manufactured prior to April 1, 1977. That was the date of the applicability of the new school bus safety standards, and it would be almost impossible to upgrade an old bus body to comply with the new safety standards. You indicated that you do not plan this type of operation.

You stated that you might place a new chassis on bodies manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the original chassis were damaged in an accident. You still would be considered as the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the applicable safety standards. However, it should be possible for you to mount a post-April 1, 1977, body on a new chassis and make the vehicle comply with all applicable standards.

If you have any further questions after receiving this information and after obtaining a copy of the Federal safety standards, please contact us.

ID: nht80-3.36

DATE: 08/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 9, 1980, letter requesting clarification of the Federal requirements for door locks on fire trucks. Specifically, you ask whether Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206), is applicable to fire trucks.

As Mr. Oates of my office stated in his telephone conversation with you, Safety Standard No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Since fire trucks are not specifically exempted in the standard, they would be considered "trucks" and would have to comply with the standard. There are certain types of doors on vehicles, however, that do not have to comply with the requirements of the standard. Section S4 of the standard provides:

Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard.

Therefore, certain doors on fire trucks may not be required to have locks. For example, a door leading to a cat-walk or standing area on the fire truck that contains no seating position would not have to comply with the standard. Likewise, a passenger compartment door that is readily removable would also not have to comply. I believe that many fire trucks have these type doors. You should check with your sales people to see if the vehicles they saw at the Fire

Equipment Show would qualify under the exceptions mentioned above. If you are aware of specific models that should comply with the standard but which do not, we would appreciate being apprised of that information. I hope this has clarified the requirements of the standard.