ID: 86-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald L. Anglin Consulting Editor McGraw-Hill Book Company 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

Dear Mr. Anglin:

Your May 1, 1986 letter to Administrator Steed requesting information on Federal regulations applying to removal of motor vehicle safety equipment has been referred to this office for reply. Unfortunately, we never received the previous letter you sent to NHTSA in December 1985. We regret any inconvenience to you.

Your letter asked whether it is a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or vehicle owner to remove or otherwise tamper with any item of motor vehicle safety equipment. As explained below, there would be a violation with respect to commercial businesses "tampering" with used vehicles or altering new vehicles if the modification affected negatively the vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, no Federal requirements apply to individual vehicle owners who tamper with safety equipment on or in their own vehicles.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on motor vehicles by adding section 108(a)(21(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any 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, Federal law prohibits the aforementioned commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard by either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of the safety equipment. For example, none of the commercial businesses referenced in section 108(a)(2)(A) could remove the safety belts in a motor vehicle if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Violations of section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The second part of your question asked about individual vehicle owners. Since section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners, an owner could remove the safety belts from his or her vehicle without violating Federal law. Of course, such removals or alterations could be affected by State law and the agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with safety equipment.

Persons tampering with safety equipment on new motor vehicles prior to their first sale to consumers could be considered vehicle "alterers" under our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a vehicle alterer could not remove am item of safety equipment from a new vehicle if this would prevent him or her from certifying that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

I have enclosed copies of the Vehicle Safety Act and Part 567.7, for your information. I have enclosed also an information sheet entitled "Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting" which discuss section 108(a)(2)(A) and Part 567.7 as they apply to persons modifying motor vehicle window glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 1, 1986

Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to the public Affairs Director of your organization on December 18, 1985.

As yet, I have received no answer.

Would you please forward the copy of my December letter to someone knowledgeable in these areas.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

December 18, 1985

Public Affairs Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Tampering seems to be defined generally as pertaining to emission control devices and odometers. But the issue of the car owner or mechanic tampering with safety equipment is not so clear.

Is it a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or a car owner to remove any piece of safety equipment designed into an automobile?

For example, is it illegal for a car owner to remove the seat belts from a new car, or for a mechanic to remove the self-adjusters from drum brakes or to disconnect the parking brake?

Would you please send me copies of the current or proposed laws or regulations that apply to tampering with safety equipment, and copies of any pamphlets or articles on the subject.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: 86-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANCISCO DEE TAN -- PRESIDENT FRG INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/15/86 RE HS7 FORM APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR REAR WINDOW 3RD STOP LIGHT, TO NHTSA FROM FRANCISCO DEETAN, OCC-0606

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1986, asking for our approval of different types of rear stop lamps you wish to import.

The lighting devices depicted in the brochures that you enclosed are not intended as original or replacement motor vehicle equipment, and therefore are not covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If you are required to execute a Form HS-7 at the time of entry, the proper declaration is that provided by Box 1: the equipment was manufactured on a date when no Federal standards applied to it. In any event, this agency has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for self-certification by manufacturers of their products subject to Federal standards.

In the absence of Federal requirements, whether the devices you wish to import are legal for installation and use would be determinable under the laws of the individual States where the devices will be sold and installed.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY -- JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ARKANSAS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/01/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, OCC - 0441

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kennedy:

This responds to your April 1, 1986, letter asking whether our regulations for school buses and transit buses apply to used school buses acquired to transport members of nonprofit organizations and churches. As I understand your letter, the Joint Interim Committee is especially interested in regulations pertaining to maintenance of used school buses and driver licensing. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

As explained below, while NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our requirements do not apply to the use of motor vehicles and we have no regulations directly applying to vehicle maintenance and driver licensing for buses other than school buses. However, we have issued recommendations for state pupil transportation programs that include guidelines for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications. I have enclosed a copy of those for your information.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations we issued for buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicles are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Vehicle Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used school buses you asked about are not required by Federal law to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

While the sale or use of used motor vehicles is not directly regulated by NHTSA, modifications of used motor vehicles are subject to Vehicle Safety Act limitations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any 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, the repair or modification of used buses is subject to Federal regulation if commercial businesses are involved. Such persons are prohibited from modifying used vehicles in such a way that would negatively affect the safety provided by the Federally required safety features.

The second set of regulations applying to buses and school buses was issued by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Highway Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to make grants to the States. Each State administers its grants according to a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year.

Regulations implementing the Highway Safety Act include a number of "program standards" issued for states to adopt in their highway safety programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, are recommendations for ideal or model safety programs. I have enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, because it suggests requirements for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications which you might find helpful. Also, Standard No. 17 recommends that States not allow school buses that have been converted to be used for purposes other than transporting school students to be signed, painted, and equipped as school buses. A review of state law would determine which of the standard's recommendations have been adopted by Arkansas as part of its highway safety program.

In addition, the National Standards Division of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety will be able to provide you with information on regulations for the use of interstate motor carriers and driver licensing. You can contact them at 202-366-2981 or in Room 3404 at the address given above.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GEORGE W. KEELEY, -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY; LETTER DATED 02/25/86 EST, TO RICHARD F HAHN FROM DIANE K STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Keeley:

Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1986, to Administrator Steed, which was referred to my office for reply. As stated in the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, to Mr. Hahn, the interpretation letter to Mr. Pennells should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment. Therefore, the Pennells letter, when read together with the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, represents the agency's advisory opinion on this issue.

As to your request for a copy of any future request for interpretation from Mr. Pennells, please be advised that all the requests for interpretations and agency advisory letters are publicly available from our docket section which is located at room 5109, at the above address. You may wish to contact, periodically, the docket section to obtain a copy of any interpretation letter issued by the agency.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/18/86 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. ARISAKA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you ask whether it is permissible to leave an inoperative center high-mounted stop lamp installed in a vehicle when an operative one is mounted on a spoiler at the rear of the car.

We assume that the new lamp fully complies with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps. Our answer is that it is permissible to leave the inoperative lamp in place since its function has been assumed by a conforming lamp. We have no regulations that would either prohibit or require the removal of an inoperative lamp.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TO: NHTSA, Legal Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/86, TO DON PANZER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 111

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find a photograph, illustration and description of a device designed to serve as a supplementary hazard warning signal for automobiles.

Since this device is a light and is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly I would appreciate an interpretation of it's suitability for the North American automotive market as per standards No. 108 (Lights) and No. 111 (Mirrors).

Should you require any information not already contained in this letter I would be please to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

SUPPLEMENTARY HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FOR AUTOMOBILES

This patented device serves as a supplementary hazard warning light for automobiles. It is included within the body or housing of the side rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively, it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions. It is designed to flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lights. Like current hazard warning lights this device can also perform as a directional signal

Present hazard warning lights are usually included in the front and rear light clusters. In bad weather or because of an accumulation of dirt,ice,etc. on the lenses, hazard warning lights can become less effective. Furthermore, if emergency work is being carried out on a vehicle, for example changing a tire, one or more of the existing warning lights can be invisible for relatively long periods of time thus reducing the warning to approaching traffic.

Like the high-mount brake light this device is located higher up on the vehicle to provide better visibility to oncoming traffic. Furthermore, because it is part of the side mirror configuration it is mounted well outside the range of the front and rear light clusters thus making it potentially more conspicious than current hazard warning lights.

FOR MORE INFORMTION CONTACT: Don Panzer SPRAY-RIDER, INC.

1

HAZARD WARNING APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

This invention relates to electrical, hazard warning apparatus for motor vehicles, of the kind in which, when required, lamps are made to flash continuously on the outside of the vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle in a stationary and possibly dangerous position. Such hazard warning apparatus is hereinafter referred to as "of the kind described".

Hazard warning lamps at present fitted to motor vehicles are usually included in the front and rear lamp clusters. In bad weather conditions or because of an accumulation of dirt on the lenses, hazard warning lamps in both these positions can become less effective. The hazard warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle are more likely to be ineffective than those at the front for these reasons.

When work is being carried out, for example the changing of a wheel, one or both hazard warning lamps, at the front or rear, can be invisible for relatively long periods and so give a misleading signal or fail to give any warning at all to approaching vehicles.

An indication that the usual position of hazard warning lamps is not really satisfactory is that on emergency vehicles special hazard warning lamps are usually fitted high up, for example on the roof of the vehicle.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the effectiveness of hazard warning apparatus.

The present invention consists in hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

To give a driver the required field of view exterior, rear-view mirrors must project well to the side of the vehicle, and be mounted at or above the waist, or window-sill level of the vehicle body. A repeater hazard warning lamp provided, according to the invention, in or on the rear-view mirror is therefore in a conspicuous position and at a higher level than the usual front and rear lamp clusters. The invention is applicable to exterior, rear-view mirrors adapted to be mounted in any of the usual positions on a vehicle, including on the door, wing, or windscreen pillar of the vehicle or on a laterally-projecting bracket clamped to the gutter rail of the vehicle body or to a luggage rack on the roof.

Most motor vehicles now have an exterior rear-view mirror on the near side in addition to one on the off-side of the vehicle. Each exterior rear-view mirror is preferably provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

It is preferred, and may be required by law, that the repeated hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

Hazard warning lamps often serve also as direction indicators, the lamps on only one side at a time of the vehicle then being arranged to flash. In such apparatus the repeater hazard warning lamp may then be

3 arranged to be operated with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

The repeater hazard warning lamp may be included within a body of the rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.

Within the same inventive concept the present invention comprises a motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

The present invention will now be described by way of example within reference to the accompanying drawing which is a perspective view of a rear-view mirror for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle and as seen when the observer is looking forwards from the rear of the vehicle.

The door mirror shown in the drawing comprises a mirror head 1 and a mounting bracket 2 by which the mirror is mounted on the vehicle door. The mirror head has a cowl-shaped body 3, which may be made from metal or plastics, foamed polyurethane for example. The body 3 houses a reflective element 4 and a repeater hazard warning Lamp 5 comprising a cavity 6 within the body 3 opening at a window 7 facing in the same direction as the reflective element 4, an electric lamp bulb 8 in the cavity 6 and a 'hazard' orange coloured plastics lens 9 closing the window but shown in the drawing partly broken away to show the lamp bulb 8. The lens 9 is secured by screws 10 engaging screw

4, threaded holes 11 in lugs 12 on the body 3. The bulb 8 is a festoon bulb mounted in a conventional festoon bulb holder 13 in front of a reflector 14. Though only one lamp bulb 8 is shown, there could be more than one bulb arranged, for example end to end to provide better light distribution and greater safety if one should fail. Other types of electric lamp bulbs may be provided.

Though the window is shown as arranged along the upper edge of the reflective element 4, and this is probably the best position, it could be along either of the other two outer edges of the reflective element 4, that is the lower edge 15 or the outer side edge 16.

A further window, facing forwards could be provided in the mirror head body so that the light of the repeater hazard warning lamp would also be visible from the front of the vehicle. Alternatively the repeater hazard warning lamp 5 could be mounted on a flat top of the body with an inverted, hollow, transparent or translucent cover over the lamp bulb so that the light would be visible in all directions.

The repeater hazard warning lamp 4 is electrically connected by a cable (not shown) which passes through the interior of the body 3 and the mounting bracket 2, the vehicle door and door pillar (not shown) to the wiring of the conventional hazard warning apparatus of the vehicle.

This hazard warning lamp apparatus according to the invention is well able to provide additional protection in hazard situations. The mirror in which the repeater hazard warning lamp is included can perform the normal functions to an extorior, rear-view

5 mirror. As the repeater hazard warning lamp is in a higher position than the conventional front and rear lamp clusters it is less exposed to soiling by road dirt. During forward motion of the vehicle the cowling shape of the body 3 protects the lens 9 from road spray.

6 CLAIMS

1. Hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

2. Hazard warning apparatus according to claim 1 wherein there is an exterior, rear-view mirror on each side of the vehicle and each mirror is provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

3. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body of the exterior rear-view mirror.

4. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any proceding claim wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

5. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

6. Hazard warning apparatus according to any preceding claim which is adapted to serve also as a direction indicator wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is operable only with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

7. A motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be

7 connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

8. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body housing the exterior rear-view mirror.

9. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 or claim 8 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

10. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 9 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp has a window adjacent an outer edge of the reflective element.

11. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a door mirror.

12. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a wing mirror.

13. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp, substantially as described herein with reference to, and as illustrated by the accompanying drawing.

14. Hazard warning apparatus for a motor vehicle substantially as herein described.

ID: 86-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joseph H. Barnett, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Joseph H. Barnett, Esq. Puckett, Barnett, Larson, Mickey Wilson & Ochsenschlager One Constitution Drive P.O. Box 1287 Aurora, Illinois 60507

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This responds to your letter concerning a brake shoe assembly invented by your client. You stated that it is contemplated that the item will be sold in the replacement or so called after market and asked whether governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

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

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake shoe assembly, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not by required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Please note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

N.H.T.A. 40O - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

RE: Belk Brake Assembly Patent Application Serial No. 06/804,166

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This office is counsel for George L. Belk, the inventor of an improved brake shoe assembly. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the abstract describing same along with figures 1 and 2 of the mechanical drawing submitted with the patent application.

In previous art, the webs are welded to the table and by this invention they are held together by slots and belts. Prototypes have been successfully road-tested for many thousands of miles under heavy duty conditions.

It is contemplated that the market for the item will be in the replacement or so-called attachment. Could you please advise if governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service.

Very truly yours,

J.H. Barnett

JHB/me

Enclosures

BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY

ABSTRACT

A bake shoe assembly for a vehicle includes a generally arcuate platform, to which a pad of friction lining is attached, and with is selectively connectable to a pair of supporting webs. Each web has a plurality o radially extending peripheral projections received by corresponding slots provided in the platform. Clamp means are provided for pressing the webs against the platform such that the projections and slots cooperate to locate the webs immovably on the platform. The platform and friction lining may thereby be removed from the webs while the webs remain installed within the brake drum of the vehicle.

ID: 86-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hubert J. Thomiszer -- Senior Mechanical Engineer, Triodyne, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hubert J. Thomiszer Senior Mechanical Engineer Triodyne Inc. 5950 West Touhy Avenue Niles, Illinois 60648

Dear Mr. Thomiszer:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether the 20 g acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat was based on a barrier impact test and, if so, at what speed. You also asked whether the 20 g acceleration was established taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors. Your questions are responded to below.

The requirements to which you refer are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in relevant part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight of the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction:

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weigh; of the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction . . .

The basic requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was part of Standard No. 207 as that standard was established as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 32 FR 2415, February 3, 1967. (The standard was later amended by revising certain other requirements, extending its application to additional vehicle types, adding requirements, and clarifying and restructuring the standard.)

As required by section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards were promulgated under a tight statutory deadline and here based on existing safety standards. Standard No. 207 was based on the Society of automotive engineers' (207) Recommended Practice J879, Passenger Car Front Seat and Seat Adjuster (November 1963), and on the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Standard No. 515/6a, one of a number of standards which were developed for Government vehicles.

With respect to the requirements at issue, section 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice J879 provided in relevant part:

3.1 Seat Adjusters and Seat Frame Combination--Each combination of seat adjusters and seat frame, together with their attachments, shall be capable of sustaining horizontal forward and rearward static load (L) equal to 20 times the weight of the fully trimmed seat. One-half of this load (L/2) shall be applied at points 8.00 in. above the seat frame rear attaching points as shown in Fig. 1. The 8.00 in. load application points represent the approximate vertical center of gravity of a fully trimmed passenger car front seat. . .

We have been advised by our technical staff that the requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was based on the forces involved in a 30 mph barrier impact test. Moreover, this requirement does not include any adjustment to take account of the increased loading on seat anchors that could result from passengers who are unrestrained impacting the seat in front of them in a frontal impact.

You may wish to contact the Society of Automotive Engineers for information concerning the development of their recommended practice.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 17, 1986

Chief Counsel Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Erika Jones: I was advised by Mr. Steve Oesch to forward my request for information to your attention.

I would like to know two features of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 207.

1. Was the 20G acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat based an a barrier impact test and if so at what speed.

2. Was the 20G acceleration taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors.

I will appreciate receiving this information as quickly as possible. there be any questions regarding this request, please call me collect at 677-V430.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Hubert J. Thomiszer, M.E., P.E Senior Mechanical Engineer

ID: nht76-1.2

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.

Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word "Lights". The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.

YOURS TRULY,

British Leyland Motors Inc.

March 29, 1976

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS 101

To commonize on switches used for master lighting controls worldwide, one of the Leyland Cars divisions would like to use the ISO light bulb symbol for master lighting switch.

We do not find this alternative provided in any recent proposals issued by NHTSA and we ask:

a) if you have considered this alternative symbol

b) if you have decided not to allow its use

c) would you consider its use.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-1.20

DATE: 06/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Moss Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of February 9, 1976, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to replacement brake hoses for MG sports cars built from approximately 1945 to 1955.

All brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74. All brake hose assemblies manufactured on or after March 1, 1975, must meet those performance and labeling requirements in the standard that apply to assemblies and, with an exception noted below, must be constructed of conforming hose and end fittings.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not applicable to classic or antique cars in the following sense: a standard applies only to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured after its effective date. Thus, for example, there is no requirement that the MG's in question be retrofitted with conforming brake hose. However, any person manufacturing brake hose for use in such a vehicle must, on and after September 1, 1974, ensure that the hose conforms.

You may find some relief in S12 of the standard. To facilitate the depletion of inventories of hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, that conforms to all aspects of the standard except the labeling requirements, this provision permits the use of such hose in assemblies manufactured before September 1, 1976.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to hydraulic brake system components other than Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOSS MOTORS, Ltd.

April 14, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am very disappointed at not having received a reply to my letter of February 9, 1976, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

May I please have the courtesy of a prompt reply to this letter?

Yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

Enclosure: letter copy

February 9, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you at this time in order to attempt to clarify the present situation as regards hydraulic brake hoses as fitted to older British Sports Cars.

I have just finished reading all available information published by the Department of Transportation covering the manufacture of hose and fittings effective September 1, 1974, manufacture of brake hose assemblies March 1, 1975, and manufacture of vehicles effective September 1, 1975.

A very large part of our business is in the sales of replacement parts for the British MG sports car as built from approximately 1945 to approximately 1955. These are the models designated as TA, TB, TC, TD, TF add Y. All of these vehicles had hydraulic braking systems built by British Lockheed Corporation, from whom we have been obtaining replacement parts in the past. We are now unable to supply our customers with any brake hoses whatsoever due to the fact that Lockheed has apparently not "tooled up" to produce these hoses to your new specifications as yet and probably will not do so, at least until they can catch up with the present more popular hoses. There are 2 other companies, one in England and one in Australia, who have supplied replacement hoses in the past but I do not believe that they are labeled to meet the United States specifications.

While we are very anxious to be able to supply our customers with brake hoses in order to keep these rather elderly cars running, we certainly do not want to be party to supplying any hoses which would be unsafe or illegal, particular in light of todays very common lawsuits. I have heard, unofficially, that the DoT requirements are not applicable to older (classic or antique?) cars and would like to hear from you directly as to how we should best handle this situation.

I would also like to know if there are any regulations covering other hydraulic brake components such as cylinders, repair kits, or merely hoses and fluid.

Anxiously awaiting your prompt reply, I remain,

yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss