ID: nht92-2.16

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: L. Schmidt

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to L. Schmidt (A41; Std. 301)

TEXT: I am writing to obtain some information regarding changing engines in cars -- the questions are.

1. Is there any law that forbids replacing a worn out gas engine in a U.S. or foreign automobile with a diesel engine -- like a 6 cylinder Diesel Cummins engine which is in a Dodge pickup truck? (the 3/4 ton type)

2. If there is a law that forbids that -- does it only apply to the zone in a state where emissions tests are yearly required?

Please let me know about this. I was told its possible there is a law on this.

I would assume that the GM Diesel engine passenger cars could have engines switched to other better diesel engines if there was a law against switching the other way.

Please let me know as we would like to know about this.

ID: nht92-2.17

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: John Paul Barber -- Legislative Counsel, American Association of Blood Banks

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to John Paul Barber (A41; Part 567; Part 571); Also attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (Part 567)

TEXT: This letter is written to request an opinion on whether second stage manufacturers may affix an additional certification label with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. This issue is important in determining if existing stocks of blood mobiles must be classified as commercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The AABB is the professional and scientific organization for individuals and institutions, involved in blood banking and transfusion medicine. AABB member institutions collect virtually all of the nation's volunteer blood supply. Many AABB blood centers operate "blood mobiles" for collecting blood donations away from the blood center.

The AABB advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to blood mobiles have the authority under 47 CFR Sections 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use (see attached.) We have since received a legal opinion asserting that Sections 567 and 568 PRECLUDE affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use.

We recognize that Sections 567 and 568 do not expressly authorize a second stage manufacturer to affix an additional label establishing a new GVWR for vehicles already in use. However, we analyzed the law and determined that a second stage manufacturer is not PROHIBITED from affixing an additional label with a new GVWR to vehicles already in use.

We interpret Section 108 of the National Traffic and Safety Act to render federal motor vehicle regulations that are not safety standards inapplicable to motor vehicles after they are sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. We therefore conclude that since the labeling requirements found in Sections 567 and 568 are not safety standards, second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to blood mobiles already in use.

Please provide us with your opinion regarding whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale. Also, will affixing a new label with an adjusted GVWR have the Chief effect of rendering existing blood mobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

Thank you for your assistance on this issue and I look forward to receiving your response.

Attached to letter dated 9-24-92 from E. Shannon Cooper, MD, President, and Joel M. Solomon, PhD, Executive Director, to AABB Institutional Members "Re: Licensing Requirements Bloodmobile Operators: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Change Recommended."

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.18

DATE: 11/19/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER - FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM PAUL GOULD TO PAUL RICE DATED 9-1-92 (EST.) (OCC 7792)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force -- relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +/-0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.19

DATE: November 19, 1992

FROM: Daniel Cassese

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/92 (should be 1/5/93) from Paul Jackson Rice (signed by John Womack) to Daniel Cassese (A40; Std. 201; Std. 202; Std. 208; Std. 302; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Womack in regard to my questions concerning an invention I have and also a U.S. Patent #5, 135, 283.

The idea is called Head-rest (Extension) it would be used in Automobiles and allow a person to sit in more comfort when placed in the "existing" automobile seat. I need to find out whether my invention will comply to Safety Standards #201, 202, and #208. If it does comply, I have a Manufacturer Company, named GOSHEN CUSHIONS, INC. that is willing to manufacture it.

I've included the Patent Drawings and descriptions, please review them. Will this item (Head-Rest Ext.) comply with safety-standards #201, #202, #208?

How can I get approval??

I do NOT have a model (prototype) at this time.

Dear Sir,

Please note that figure #5 the #22 can be made to extend over the top of the existing head-rest. The Head-rest will NOT change the shape or design of the existing one at all. All dimensions are covered within the U.S. Patent.

HENCE: #34 is obsolete. There is no need for this vertical slot as shown because the existing headrest are not made this way. Instead #22 can be EXTENDED over the existing headrest and placed upon the existing headrest and seat.

#42 can be attached to Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, if chosen that way.

Attachment

Information regarding Patent # 5,135,283, Head Rest Extension. (Text and graphics omitted.))

ID: nht92-2.2

DATE: 11/26/92

FROM: NILTON MELLO -- VITROTEC - VIDROS DE SEGURANCA LTDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

COPYEE: I.A.T.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-17-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO NILTON MELLO (A40; STD. 205)

TEXT: We have received your letter dated November 13, 1992 that confirm our agent I.A.T. and conforms to your procedural requirements. We have also received on November 25th., 1992 our D.O.T. number (515).

We need to know if with these (DOT 515), we are able to export our laminated windshields and others 1for motor vehicles, or if it is needed by law that we perform tests at the one of the American Laboratoryes, and then clear the process of requirements to export.

We would appreciate a swift answer. Since now we appreciate your help.

ID: nht92-2.20

DATE: November 18, 1992

FROM: Joanna L. Campfield -- Vice President, ULTRA B-O-N-D, INC.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: Windshield Repair

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Joanna L. Campfield (A40; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Our company is a windshield repair system distributor. We have a design patent pending on our equipment and issued patent #5,116,441 for the methods of repairing long cracks in windshields.

Since the development of windshield repair in the 1970's, equipment has upgraded, resins have been made stronger and results have improved. At that time it was the position of the U.S. Department of Transportation that windshield repair was not prohibited either by your Department or Federal law or regulation. Repairs are restricted from any area which may hinder the driver's vision as well as new windshields damaged in shipment, as per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

As more and more insurance companies are favoring repair versus replacement, we would appreciate receiving an updated approval letter from your offices. If there is any information we can supply to you, please contact our office.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht92-2.21

DATE: November 18, 1992

FROM: L. J. Sharman

TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-23-93 from John Womack to L. J. Sharman (A40; Std. 302)

TEXT: Recently, two questions have arisen concerning the procedure to be followed when conducting the flammability test method specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. Each of the questions, the writers answer and rationale are given on the attached sheets. I am writing to request an advisory opinion as to whether these answers are correct, if not what the correct interpretation should be.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FLAMMABILITY TEST PROCEDURE SPECIFIED IN MVSS-302

QUESTION 1.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(e), states that the timing for each specimen be started when the flame from the burning specimen reaches a point 1.5 inches from the open end of the specimen and, in Section S5.3(f), is stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen. Further, the Standard, in Section S5.2.2, states the specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air space faces downward on the test frame. The question that has been raised is whether the timing is started and stopped when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air spaces (the surface facing down during the test), or when the flame reaches the designated points on the surface of the specimen facing away from the occupant compartment air space (the surface facing up during the test).

ANSWER

Timing of the flame should start when the flame from the burning specimen reaches the 1.5 inch point on the surface facing up during the test and stopped when the flame progresses to a point 1.5 inches from the clamped end of the specimen on the surface facing up during the test.

RATIONALE

The Standard states that the bunsen burner and the specimen are positioned so that the center of the bottom edge of the open end of the specimen. While the Standard does not specify how far above the cabinet floor the specimen must be located, the bunsen burner and flame height specified above effectively define this distance. At that height, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to observe the flame front underneath the specimen. If the intent of the standard was to observe the flame front test cabinet floor or some other means of

observing the flame front. Since NHTSA did not make such requirements, the logical location points for starting and stopping the timing are on the surface facing up during the test.

QUESTION 2.

MVSS-302, in Section S5.3(f), states that the flame progression be measured to a point 1.5 inches rom the clamped end of the specimen under test. The standard does not specify actions to be taken after timing has stopped. Some laboratories put out the flame using a small amount of water from a spray bottle. The question has been raised as to whether using a small amount of water from a spray bottle to put out the flame is an acceptable procedure.

ANSWER

The use of a small amount of water from a spray bottle is believed to be acceptable.

RATIONALE

The primary concern with the use of water to put out the flame is whether the water would affect the humidity in the test chamber and, therefore, the test results. MVSS 302 states in Section S5.1.2 that prior to testing each specimen be conditioned at a temperature of 70 degrees F. and a relative humidity of 50 percent, and the test be conducted under those ambient conditions. The Standard does not specify the humidity limits within which the test must be conducted. Considering the short time the specimen is in the chamber before burning and the small amount of water used it is believed that the humidity would not be significantly affected and therefore the procedure to be both acceptable and a good safety precaution.

ID: nht92-2.22

DATE: 11/17/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SHIRLEY A. STEWART -- PRESIDENT SAS ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-16-92 FROM SHIRLEY A. STEWART TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7866)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1992, to this office regarding the installation of a "silent monitor" on school buses. You stated in your letter that you made a presentation to Mr. Maurice Hicks and Mr. Rich Van Iderstine of this agency at a meeting on October 2, 1992, and you asked how our standards apply to installation of this device on school buses.

You described the silent monitor as a six-inch cube of welded steel designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses. You explained that the device is installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. The box protrudes into the interior of the bus by three to four inches. The front of the box, which swings open for installation of a video camera, contains a reflective solar glass window to prevent glare on the inside of the box.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering silent monitors. However, it is possible that the installation of a silent monitor could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If your silent monitor is installed in a new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your silent monitor is installed in a used school bus, any businesses, including your own, making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

In order to determine how installation of your silent monitors could affect the compliance of school buses with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing school bus body joint strength, crash protection, and windshield intrusion. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

As indicated above, you stated that your silent monitor would be installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. Given the added weight that would be on the panel, we suggest that you carefully evaluate whether additional securement of the panel is needed to ensure that the panel and silent monitor do not come loose during a crash. We also note that the silent monitor appears to have sharp edges. You may wish to consider adding padding to prevent injury to an occupant who comes in contact with the monitor.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ATTACHMMENTS (FACT SHEET AND BOOKLET OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-2.23

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WOLDGANG W. KLAMP

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM WOLFGANG W. KLAMP TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7919)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 28, 1992, with respect to problems encountered by your wife in her use of a 1992 Canadian Ford Tempo passenger car.

Your letter indicates that your wife works in Canada, and uses the Ford, a company car owned by her employer, to travel to and from her home in the United States. Because the vehicle is not certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, she has been informed by U.S. Customs officials at the border that it may not be admitted in the future without going through the formal entry process for conversion to the U.S. standards. You have asked for our consideration of this matter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation into the United States of motor vehicles that do not conform, and that are not certified by their manufacturers to conform, to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a legal matter, each time the Ford crosses the border from British Columbia to Washington, it is being imported into this country. It has been the policy of this agency for many years to regard Canadian and Mexican-registered vehicles engaged in daily cross-border traffic as subject to the importation prohibitions of the Act, and to require their compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is the reason why your wife is encountering difficulties at the border.

We have several suggestions. If the ford is equipped with automatic occupant protection such as an air bag or automatic belts, it may, in fact, comply with all the U.S. standards. If this is the case, then Ford of Canada may be willing to provide your wife with a letter certifying its compliance to the U.S. standards which she could present at the border.

Customs should honor such a letter, and allow the vehicle to proceed with no further delay. If this is not the case, perhaps her employer could provide her with a Canadian-manufactured car that does meet, and is certified as meeting, the U.S. standards. Otherwise, your wife may have to use a U.S. -registered and certified vehicle and seek reimbursement for travel expenses from her Canadian employer.

ID: nht92-2.24

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MICHAEL J. VACANTI

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-1-92 FROM MICHAEL J. VACANTI TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7823)

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you have designed. According to your letter, this device is an aftermarket accessory. The accessory is a polyurethane device that latches onto the lap/shoulder belt and changes the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses a child's torso. The device is intended to improve shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be "rendered inoperative" by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.