ID: nht80-4.10

DATE: 10/08/80

FROM: F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Hingtgen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1980, requesting information concerning all Federal Motor Vehicle Safey Standards relevant to the manufacture and sale of an auxiliary wind deflector.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Based upon the information you have provided, it is our opinion that your wind deflector is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (copy enclosed). Incorporating by reference "ANSZ26", the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). Thus the material you propose to use is acceptable since it is Plexiglass or Acuylite having an Item 4 rating, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. Such AS-4 glazing material must of course meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the light, at normal incidence, both before and after irradiation."

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing you use in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

After the first purchase of the equipment for purposes other than resale, i.e., its purchase by a consumer, tampering with the equipment is limited by Section 108(a)(2)(A). This section prohibits certain entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards. The prohibiiton applies only to manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and to motor vehicle repair businesses. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment. Section 109 provides a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this section.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

ID: nht80-4.11

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116, in which you inquired about the definition of "purple" as specified for the color of DOT 5 brake fluid. During a telephone conversation regarding the question on September 2, 1980, with Edward Glancy of this office, you suggested that specific color coordinates be established and expressed concern about another manufacturer's DOT 5 brake fluid that appears to be blue rather than purple.

Paragraph S5.1.14 of the standard states: "Brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, shall be of the color indicated: . . . DOT 5 -- purple." This is in contrast to the color specifications of DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid which are required to be colorless to amber and hydraulic system mineral oil which is required to be green.

The major purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. See notice 12 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (41 FR 54942, 54943) on December 16, 1976. At an early stage in the rulemaking process, the Agency did propose color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. See notice 5 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (38 FR 32142, 32144) on November 21, 1973. (The colors proposed at that time were later changed.) Later, however, the Agency determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate and the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. See notice 6 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (39 FR 30353) on August 22, 1974.

As you noted in your letter, Notice 10 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (40 FR 56928) on December 5, 1975, does explain:

. . . The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in day-light by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids).

Establishing specific color coordinates would require rule-making proceedings in accordance with agency regulations. If you believe that coordinates ought to be established, you may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 116. The procedures for submitting such a petition are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, we would like to see it address the issues of why visual inspection for color compliance is inadequate and what type of definition should be established.

If you believe that another manufacturer is in noncompliance with Standard 116, we suggest that you send the relevant information to our office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for enforcement purposes.

We have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices referred to by this letter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

GENERAL ELECTRIC

SILICONE SALES DEPARTMENT

July 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Silicone Products Division of General Electric Company requests a legal interpretation of the requirement of paragraph S5.1.14 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116.

Our question is: How do you define "Purple" as specified for the color of DOT-5 brake fluid?

We note that the preamble to Notice 10 of Docket 71-13 states in part that "the specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision." The preamble further states that "no color coordinates are proposed since the fluids may change color in storage or in use."

Thank you.

T. M. Birdwell

ID: nht80-4.12

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: OVSC

TITLE: OVSC Investigatory Activities Concerning Possible Violations of UTQGS Treadwear Grading Requirements

TEXT: This responds to your request for direction concerning when the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement, must open a formal standards enforcement investigation (known as a "CIR" [certification information request] of a possible noncompliance with the treadwear grading requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CER 575.104.

UTQGS is a consumer information regulation. While the regulation does require tire manufacturers to provide grading information in the important safety areas of traction and temperature resistance, the treadwear grades, on the other hand, are primarily economic rather than safety information. Moreover, as a consumer information regulation, UTQGS requires no minimum level of safety performance, but, rather, requires relative ranking information. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that it is imperative that a CIR be opened immediately whenever there is a testing result indicating that a small number of tires may be at variance with their manufacturer's rating. OVSC may conduct further testing and/or analysis, including inquiry to the manufacturer, prior to opening a CIR. (Any records of these activities will be treated according to the particular applicability of the Freedom of Information Act.) Such a practice is akin to the Office of Defects Investigation conducting a preliminary inquiry of engineering analysis, which may or may not lead to the opening of a formal defect case investigation.

So that the public and the industry may understand this direction, we are placing a copy of this memorandum in the Interpretations File in the Technical Reference Library, and sending a copy to the Rubber Manufacturers Association.

ID: nht80-4.13

DATE: 10/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Interregional Services Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 5, 1980, asking whether there is a Federal bumper standard applicable to trucks, and who is responsible for installation of the rear bumper on a truck manufactured in two or more stages. You also inquire whether a truck without a rear bumper is considered a completed vehicle for purposes of Federal regulations, and whether a truck with a frame rail extending beyond the rear end of the vehicle body would violate Federal standards.

The Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581) applies only to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, there is no Federal bumper standard applicable to trucks, and Federal regulations do not impose responsibility for bumper installation on any party in the chain of manufacture.

Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, defines "completed vehicle" as a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components (49 CFR @ 568.3). Since the vehicle referred to in your letter apparently is capable of performing its intended function without addition of a bumper, the absence of a bumper would not be relevant in determining the vehicle's final-stage manufacturer for purposes of compliance and certification of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR @@ 567.5 and 568.6).

At the present time, there are no Federal standards which prohibit the extension of a frame rail beyond the rear end of a truck body. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering proposal of a regulation which would require protective devices to reduce vehicle penetration under the rear ends of heavy trucks and trailers.

ID: nht80-4.14

DATE: 10/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Cross; Wrock; Miller & Vieson

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1980. In it you described the plan of your client, Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., to offer a modification of its Model A replica passenger car, currently produced under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, and you asked several questions regarding this modification.

Specifically, Model A wishes to offer a modification in which the rear section of the vehicle (rumble seat) is removed and replaced by a flat bed with sides. The seating capacity of the vehicle would be reduced to two passengers and the "modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck." You have asked:

"1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture of the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as 'a person who alters certified vehicles' within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 568.8."

Since a vehicle cannot be said to comply until its manufacture is completed, and because certification is not legally required until the vehicle is delivered to a distributor, an alterer's statement is not required when modifications are made upon the assembly line by the certifying party itself, even if the certification label has been attached earlier in the manufacturing process.

You have also asked:

"2. Should the Company, for purposes of the certification required under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01, treat the modified vehicle as a passenger car; or, in the alternative, should the Company certify the vehicle as a truck, relying on the same waivers granted the Company under NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01 (and to the extent necessary, the exemption granted for Safety Standard 109 (new pneumatic tires) and and Safety Standard 110 (tire and rim combinations) for the comparable non-passenger vehicle Safety Standards 119 and 120)."

The question of whether a vehicle is a "passenger car" or "truck" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be answered by a manufacturer on the basis of the definitions contained in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Certainly the modification could be viewed as a "vehicle . . . designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (passenger car). But if it is "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment" it becomes a truck. Your letter does not indicate whether the "flat bed with sides" is intended to be load-bearing or merely decorative, or otherwise state the purpose for which its manufacturer intends it. If it is certified as a "passenger car," the exemptions in effect will apply to it.

We surmise, however, that the vehicle is intended as an alternate to the Model A passenger car, as a truck for carrying light loads. Certification as such would require compliance with Standards Nos. 119 and 120. Because the requirements differ from Standards Nos. 109 and 110, Exemption 79-01 would not cover the truck tire and rim standards, and Model A would either have to conform or apply for a temporary exemption.

We would, however, consider the vehicle as one covered by the original exemption if the modification results in no increase in the present gross vehicle weight rating stated on Model A's certification plate. An example of this would be if the modified vehicle's unloaded weight remains the same and its rated cargo load did not exceed 300 pounds (the equivalent of the reduction by two of the number of designated seats). This would insure that the modified vehicle's tires would bear no greater load than that of vehicles presently exempted and permit use of the exemptions currently in effect from the tire and rim standards.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

CROSS, WROCK, MILLER & VIESON COUNSELORS AT LAW

September 17, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corp., NHTSA Exemption No. 79-01

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Model A and Model T Motor Car Reproduction Corporation ("Company") has, since October 1, 1979, produced approximately 3,000 Model A passenger vehicles under the above-referenced Exemption. Because of the declining car market and the manufacturing cost increase, it is necessary, in order to promote sales for this vehicle, to offer a modification of the Model A passenger car. This modification entails removing the rear section of the vehicle (the rumble seat) and replacing it with a flat bed with sides. The resultant vehicle would have the added safety feature of eliminating the passenger seating that now exists in the rumble seat, and the modification would be done on the assembly-line before the vehicle is completed. Although the vehicle will in all respects be the same as the Model A passenger vehicle and would continue to be certified by the Company under NHTSA Exemption 79-01, such modification will result in a vehicle configuration with the appearance of a Model A pickup truck. In order to ensure proper compliance with the Exemption granted the Company, I would appreciate your review and response to the following items:

1. As the modification will occur before complete manufacture of the vehicle, please confirm that the Company will not be considered as "a person who alters

ID: nht80-4.15

DATE: 10/28/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Guenther Auto Works

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1980 providing further information on your proposed manufacturing operation. I am pleased you found our earlier response "most workable and least bureaucratic" and hope that you will find this letter equally so.

A vehicle consisting of a new body on a used chassis, and retaining the same title, is a "used" vehicle, which does not have to meet the Federal safety standards that apply to new vehicles. If you were using the chassis of vehicles built on or after January 1, 1968, the resulting vehicle would have to meet the standards that applied when the original vehicle was built. However, there were no vehicle safety standards that applied before January 1, 1968 so your contemplated use of a 1964 chassis (or 1965-67 for that matter) frees you totally of responsibility for vehicle safety standards compliance, no matter whether you are a kit supplier or end assembler, or are using new or reconditioned components.

A few of our safety standards, however, apply to equipment items, specifically brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheelcovers/hub caps. If you buy any of these items from an outside supplier, and the item is manufactured in the U.S.A., it is virtually certain that it will be certified by its manufacturers as meeting federal equipment standards. From your letter, it would appear that only the glazing standard (Standard No. 205) might be of concern to your operations since you write that you "will have constructed . . . glass panes . . . ." Glazing bearing the designation "AS-1" must be installed in the windshield of the new body. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 for your information.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act you are a "manufacturer" with respect to any vehicle equipment you fabricate or vehicle you assemble. This means that in the event a "safety related defect" developed in your product, you would be obligated to notify the owners and remedy the defect. I enclose our "Part 573" which tells you how to file a defect report with us and "Part 577" which details how you notify purchasers and the optional remedies you may provide (See 577.5 (g)(i)(g)(v) and (g)(vi)). Finally, if you intend to assemble the vehicles yourself, or if you are fabricating glazing (or any other item covered by a Federal standard, you should submit the information required by our "Part 566" which I also enclose.

If you have any further questions we will, of course, be happy to answer them and we appreciate your wish to be informed of your obligations under Federal law.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 12, 1980

James A. Guenther -- Guenther Auto Works

Dear Mr. Guenther:

In reply to your letter of August 5, 1980, asking for copies of regulations that would apply to your proposed manufacturing operation, we must have more information if we are to help you.

The answers to these questions are needed. (A) Do you envision a "Kit car" type of operation in which an existing chassis is retained and a new body supplied. (B) What are the reconditioned components that you plan to use. (C) Will the vehicle carry a new car title or that of a vehicle previoully in use. (D) What parts will be new? What parts will be of your own manufacture?

We know of no other Federal agencies other than the Environmental Protection Agency and our own that regulate the production of passenger cars.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

9/26/80

Frank Berndt -- department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is in Reference to NOA-30; copy of your correspondence is attached. Thank you for your efforts thus far. Your response was the most workable and least bureaucratic of any received.

In response to your specific questions in paragraph #2:

(A) At this time I intend to use a 1964 Chassis, the Balance of Equipment (body, etc.) To be newly constructed. If I follow this procedure, what effect will your agency have on my efforts? If I progress into kit car operations, how will this change the effect your Agency will have on my efforts?

(B) In regard to reconditioned components, I will offer the 1964 chassis mentioned above along with a mid-to-late '60's engine, rebuilt and modified (possibly) for slightly more power. Most else will be new (body, etc.)

(C) Titles in the state of Illinois, I believe, would be carried forward on such a vehicle. (I am currently writing to state capital as follow-up to your question.)

(D) As noted above, when I install new wiring, body, interior, etc., the finished products will have much of my own work included. I will design; constructed body seat mounts, seats, Dashboard, ETC. I will have constructed (probably) Handles, Glass Panes, Wire itself (although I will probably fashion wires into proper harnesses and circuits) will probably come from outside suppliers.

Hope you can help, based upon this information,

If more specifics are necessary, please let me know.

Sincerely, Mr. James A. Guenther, Guenther Auto Works, 3908 West Main - 8B, Belleville, Illinois 62223

ID: nht80-4.16

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature.

Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed).

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.

Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel.

If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103

After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August.

QUESTION

When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual?

BACKGROUND

1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below.

*Insert Diagram

Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below.

POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR

HI Maximum Lowest

M less than HI higher than HI position position

L Minimum Highest

In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air.

Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles.

However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility.

However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above.

Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as:

"Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance"

This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position.

2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below:

FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position

SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed.

TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance.

So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable.

In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager

cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division

ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: nht80-4.18

DATE: 11/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 10, 1990, requesting clarification of the explanation of Treadwear grading in Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR @ 575.104). You ask whether the explanation can be interpreted to mean that the relative treadwear performance of different tires on the UTQG test course in San Angelo, Texas will be consistent with the relative performance of the tires when driven under comparable conditions on other roads.

In experimental testing leading to promulgation of the UTQG regulation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tested the treadwear of various tire lines not only on the San Angelo course but on roads in other parts of the country. The agency concluded that the UTQG grades established for different tires in testing on the San Angelo course accurately represent the relative performance of the tires obtainable on roads elsewhere in the United States, assuming that the tires to be compared are run under identical conditions.

The statement in Figure 2 of the UTQG regulation that a tire graded 150 would wear one and one-half times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100 was not intended to suggest that the tire would not wear one and one-half times as well on another course, if conditions of use were controlled. The term "relative performance" in Figure 2 refers to the performance of tires in comparison to other tires, and the term "norm" refers to the consistently obtainable relative performance of tires when tested under controlled conditions. Thus, the explanation indicates that, although the relative performance of different tires will be consistent when the tires are tested under controlled conditions, this relative performance may not be obtainable in actual use, if one tire is subjected to more severe road or weather conditions, abusive driving or improper maintenance.

(Illegible Word) will-provide-confidential treatment for your October 19, (Illegible Word), letter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNIROYAL, Inc.

October 10, 1980

Joan Claybrook, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: We should appreciate NHTSA confirming as promptly as possible our understanding of the following points relating to the official explanation of the treadwear portion of tire quality grading that appears in Figure 2 of the regulation:

1. Please confirm our understanding that it is NHTSA's meaning that the treadwear relationship or ratio between tires that is established on the government test course will continue to exist elsewhere (assuming comparable usage) although the particular mileage obtained elsewhere will be different for the reasons stated in the explanation.

2. Therefore, please also confirm that

(a) the second sentence of the explanation is not to be construed as exclusive in its meaning;

(b) the words "relative performance" in the third sentence are to be construed as referring to the performance of a tire or tires on the test course and elsewhere when compared to themselves and not to other tires; and

(c) the word "norm" in the third sentence is to be construed as referring to the individual performance(s) of a tire or tires on the test course.

We request confidentiality for this letter and your reply because the disclosure of this letter could lead to premature discovery of the commercial plans referred to in our letter of August 14 which NHTSA agreed should be held confidential.

Thank you in anticipation of your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

G. Montgomery Spindler

ID: nht80-4.19

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether instruction booklets provided with child restraints must meet the flammability requirement of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer is no. They do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires each material used in a child restraint to conform to performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You asked whether the installation instructions, which are required by section 5.6 to accompany the child restraint, must comply with the flammability requirements of section 5.7. Since the installation instructions, unlike an affixed label, are not a physical part of the child restraint system, they do not have to comply with section 5.7.

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

Questor Juvenile Products Company

September 4, 1980

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Ref.: NOA-30

In your letter of April 22, 1980, to Mr. Don Gerken of Cosco Home Products, you indicated that Section 5.7, FMVSS 213, requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You also indicated that because the label, installation diagram, and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with FMVSS 302. You further stated that if the label, diagram, and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, Section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

In previous discussion with NHTSA personnel, installation and use requirements of children's car seats indicated that an instruction booklet might be required to accompany each child restraint system in order to describe adequately the various methods of installation for multi-purpose child restraint systems. NHTSA personnel had suggested during these conversations that such an instruction booklet be provided with a pocket attached to the child restraint system for retention of the booklet. As a matter of interpretation, could you please advise if such an instruction booklet, which would normally be manufactured of paper stock, must meet the flammability requirements of FMVSS 302? To the best of my knowledge, owners' manuals furnished with automobiles are not required to meet FMVSS 302. In our attempt to provide a convenient and permanent storage location for child restraint system instructions booklets, I would hope that NHTSA would not require these booklets to meet FMVSS 302 because they would be included with the child restraint.

Since the effective date of FMVSS 213's revised requirements is fast approaching, your expeditious response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

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