Interpretation ID: 1983-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Able Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. BOX 1868 Joplin, MO. 64802

Dear Mr. Cowen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file a petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of "sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks" indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacture, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.

When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Under this regulation either a component or a vechicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.

We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Body and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 26, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator:

Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, Missouri, a corporation chartered in and under the laws of the state of Missouri, wishes to petition the NHTSA for exemption from notification and remedy requirements on the grounds of an inconsequential noncompliance to FMVSS 302.

Able Body Company manufactures sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks. During a routine update of testing for compliance with FMVSS 302 on April 8, 1983, a specimen of the speaker grill mesh from a Motorola speaker grill (Motorola Part Number RV 1001) failed the burn test. The specimen burned at a rate of 6.48 in/min. Motorola was contacted and further samples were tested. As a result, on May 3, 1983, it was determined that all of the Motorola grills that had been installed by Able Body Company were out of compliance. The speaker grills were installed in pairs in 1371 sleeper berths made between May 1977 and May 1983.

Able Body Company feels that the noncompliance in this case is inconsequential for the following reasons:

1.) The grills in question measure 6 inches by 6 inches. This represents 0.5% of the surface area of the passenger compartment of a sleeper berth. Since the speaker grills are such a small area, the probability of their involvement in a fire is correspondingly small.

2.) The grills in question weigh one ounce each. This represents 0.19% of the total lining material available to burn. If a fire did occur and if it involved the grills, they would be consumed in approximately one minute each and be of no further support for combustion.

3.) The grills are located 27 inches above the mattress. This location is above the most likely risk area, from reclining smokers.

4.) Since the most likely source of fire is from a passenger who smokes, a test was made to try to ignite a grill with the coal of a cigarette. While the coal melted a hole in the mesh it did not ignite the grill. Since the grill will only readily ignite from an open flame, the probability of involvement is futher reduced..

5.) The Motorola RV 1001 grills were installed in 1371 Able Body sleeper berths. This represents a small number compared to the total number of berths. During the same period (1977-1983), Able Body manufactured 2158 other sleeper berths that did not include the Motorola grill.

Able Body Company feels that the above reasons are sufficient and therefore make this petition. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please notify us at once.

Respectfully submitted. Jim Cowen, Manager