ID: nht90-3.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Erhardt (A36; VSA Sec. 10(a)(2))

TEXT:

As you may know, we at Philips are working on the development of high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems for use as motor vehicle headlamps. These systems promise dramatic improvements in forward illumination while using less energy in a lower p rofile (allowing more aerodynamic vehicle design).

We are now at the point in our development where we have engineering samples available that we wish to test on road vehicles and would like to be advised of the laws concerning such an undertaking. It is our intention to equip 110 private and/or company vehicles for everyday use. The test would continue indefinitely (for lifetime/reliability evaluation) and could begin as early as August 27, 1990.

If a waiver or official authorization for this type of test is necessary, please consider this a request for same.

Given the competitive nature of the market that this product is being developed for, we are interested in beginning our test as soon as possible. A response by August 27 would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning our program please contact either our Director, Mark Fellows, or myself at Advance Transformer (708) 390-5000.

ID: nht90-3.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI CORPORATION

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to Dean J. Long from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 105; Std. 101)

TEXT:

I have two automotive instrument panel telltale warnings I wish to confirm are legal in the views of the NHTSA Legal Council and FMVSS. The attached sheet shows my two proposals.

The first is a 4 wheel antilock brake application. Techically, I believe this telltale is legal due to the approved abbreviation "ABS" being present. I have seen the antilock brake ISO symbol which is similar to the one I have shown except the car and "skid marks" are replaced with the "ABS" abbreviation. My question here is, Will this telltale fullfil the requirements or do I need to replace the car and "skid marks" ISO symbol with the "ABS" ISO symbol?

The second telltale is used for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. I have seen numerous telltales relating to this application. A few you may be familar with "SERVICE ENGINE SOON", "SERV ENG SOON", "CHECK ENGINE" or simply "CHECK". I would like to know two things concerning this application. One, is the word "CHECK" necessary with the engine outline? Two, is the engine outline an approved ISO symbol and if not yet will it be concidered at a later date?

Please respond on or before August 27 1990 as I must begin a production run with these telltales. Thank you for your assistance and if you need to contact us please call Mike Benoit at (313) 853-2266.

Attachment

Picture of two telltale warnings. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Ozeki -- Executive Vice President, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 214, "Side Door Strength"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Hiroshi Ozeki (A37; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, "Side Door Strength". Specifically, Mazda would like NHTSA's interpretation of the definition of the phrase, "...(t)he lowest point of the door;" . This phrase is found at S4(c)(2) under test procedures.

One of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 mm (please see attached figure). Thus, in order that the loading device used for compliance testing is positioned properly, Mazda needs to know what position, A or B, is the "lowest point of the door".

Should you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. Ted Kadoya (626-3263) at our Washington D.C. office.

Attachment

Drawing of side doors and moulding (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 13, 1990

FROM: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TO: General Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to T.J. Loughran (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On December 13, 1989 the Bargman Company requested an opinion regarding a turn signal lamp with a combined reflector. Acting Chief Counsel Stephen P. Wood issued an opinion on February 26, 1990. The opinion used the terms tail lamp and turn signal lamp interchangeably. The result is chaos, as you can see from the attached copy of a release published in an industry magazine.

Although I totally disagree with his opinion regarding he suitability of an amber reflector as an auxiliary device on the rear of a vehicle, it is not as disastrous as promulgating the idea that an amber tail lamp is also acceptable. I do not believe th e amber tail lamp was his intent but that has been the effect as a result of a inadvertent use of words.

Both of these conditions are a major disappointment to those who take highway safety seriously, first, because of the impairment of highway safety, and second, because the opinion was issued without benefit of review and comment by concerned individuals and organizations.

Your review of this condition will be appreciated. (Attached is an article entitled, It's the Law, Rear Amber Reflector, text omitted.)

ID: nht90-3.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Gerald F. Vinci -- Sun Refining and Marketing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to G.F. Vinci (A36; FMVSS 301; VSA 108(b)(1)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-79 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M. Champagne

TEXT:

Our research and development department at Sun Refining and Marketing Company is interested in converting the fuel system of a new vehicle from gasoline to propane. Sun does not intend to act as a manufacturer. The only portion of the vehicle which wil l be substantially altered is the fuel system. The vehicle is intended to be driven under normal traffic conditions and would maintain a lower emission level than that required under the Clean Air Act.

I spoke recently with Dee Fujita and Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office. After factually reviewing the project, both concluded that such a vehicle would not violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations. Ms. Fuj ita and Mr. Vinson did however caution that there may be requirements under state law.

We recognize the importance of highway safety and intend to fully comply with all applicable federal laws. To assist us, I respectfully request an opinion letter addressing compliance of such a vehicle with the Act and its regulations. If you need any additional information, please contact me at (215)246-8251.

ID: nht90-3.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1990

FROM: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-27-90 to Paul G. Scully from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A few days ago, one of our fleet customers telephoned our Sales Department and advised that they were notified that the Peterson reflex reflectors used on their vehicles were not legal because they did not have the SAE-A marking one them. Sergeant Harti gan of the Traffic Enforcement Division was under the impression that SAE markings were required because they are still shown as a requirement in the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. As you know, Federal Safety Standard 108 requirement s do not mandate the use of SAE markings on any regulated products. I believe this is the third instance in the past two years (the other two occurring in Texas) where police officials have mistakenly advised our customers that our products were illegal and should be removed. The reflex reflector products in questions do have the DOT markings on them and we certify that these products are in full compliance with Federal Safety Standards for reflex reflectors. These thin, flexible reflectors are diecu t which explains why it would be somewhat difficult and costly to put the SAE impressions on this thin film; therefore, we elected not to do it even though the SAE code markings are, in fact, used on all of our other products. It is somewhat ironic that Peterson Manufacturing Company led the industry effort to require SAE markings as part of the MVSS 108 requirements. Our company initiated the petition to require code markings, but after about one year of study, we were advised that this petition had been denied, even though the majority of the departments in both the NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety agreed with our petition. I am sure that Messrs. Felrice and Helmuth remember our many discussions concerning these markings.

These reflex reflectors are sold in large volumes both to original equipment manufacturers and as replacement products throughout the nation and, I emphasize again that they fully comply with all requirements. It is quite unfortunate that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the OMCS, still retains these marking requirements in their publication. Again, we would be pleased to have all regulated items marked as per our petition because it would avoid situations like these, as well as impe de the importation of many illegal products from the Orient which are never identified as to the source.

We would like to request that you promptly notify the Tucson Police Department that these products are not required to have SAE markings in order to be perfectly legal reflectors. I would also like to once again appeal for a uniform set of regulations b etween the two government agencies involved. We can probably expect similar misunderstandings to occur by other municipal authorities unless some action is taken.

ID: nht90-3.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR., SNUG SEAT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 6-15-90 to E. T. Jones from N. B. Scott, Jr.; (OCC 4904); also attached to copy of photograph

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking this agency's opinion on the procedures to be followed in testing a new car bed designed to transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position. Your letter and enclosed photograph indicate that you have tested the car bed with the six-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR S572.25. While the dummy's torso fits in the car bed, the legs did not. You state that "(a) dynamic crash test showed the dummy staying in the shell and the shell maintaining it's integrity." You asked whether this testing would be "adequate relative to the present standard."

By way of introduction, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simul ation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, includi ng such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

However, the agency can say that your company's decision to use the smallest test dummy included in Part 572 (the six month old test dummy) to conduct certification testing and to conduct the testing in accordance with the procedures specified in Standar d No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, appears reasonable. If that test dummy cannot be positioned entirely within the car bed, it also appears reasonable to position the

test dummy's head and torso completely within the car bed and allow the test dummy's feet and part of the legs to fall outside of the car bed. This is because S5.1.3.3 of Standard No. 213 requires all portions of the test dummy's head and torso to be ret ained within the confines of the car bed, so the head and torso must obviously begin within the car bed.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care, may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsib ility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: VAUGHN CRAWLEY -- VICE PRESIDENT, MONITOR MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO S. WOOD FROM V. CRAWLEY; (OCC 4160)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an explanation of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., "the Safety Act"). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particular ly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You aske d whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle wo uld have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follow s each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehic le or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer s imulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply

rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. NHTSA would loo k to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether yo ur company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards.

However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised "due care" based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will co mply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised "due care" to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van conver ter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsib ility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht90-3.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 16, 1990

FROM: Edward R. Heussner -- Consultant, Comp U Tence

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of Requirements for FMVSS 219 - Windshield Intrusion Zone

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Edward R. Heussner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 219; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT:

I am working on the compliance documentation for an automobile manufacturer.

In the process of studying the data, charts and films of the impact tests I noted the windshield wiper would pass thru the "protected zone" on some tests. I called your office on Friday August 10 and talked with Dorthy Nakama. My initial question of he r was is the windshield wiper considered to be a component . . . "normally in contact with the windshield" . . . as per the standard. She assured me that the wiper fits that definition and thus is not a problem.

We then discussed the next phrase regarding "penetration." The standard states that in the area immediately below the protected zone ... no such part of the vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, bel ow the protected zone.

My question revolves around what constitutes penetration? Specifically does penetration occur when the windshield is deformed in the region . . . or does some vehicle component have to actually protrude thru and puncture the "glass-plastic" in the area in question? I used the analogy of a bowling ball being dropped on a windshield. The dimple so created would certainly protrude inward yet I would not have considered it to have penetrated. Thus, in order for penetration to have occurred does some veh icle component have to go thru the windshield or is "obscuring" of the glass sufficient to demonstrate failure in this instance?

I have one other question regarding the test procedure for FMVSS 219. The standard defines a protected zone, degree of penetration and method of measurement. It is my understanding that many organizations test vehicles for several standards simultaneou sly (i.e. 208, 212, 219 & 301) and consequently considerable data is lost when the protected zone styrofoam template is glued to the windshield. Thus it is quite common to use the results of this multi-standard test to prove compliance to 219 under a NH TSA approved deviation to the stated approach.

Is engineering judgement acceptable to the agency in this instance. That is to say that analysis of the films could easily show nothing came near the protected zone. However, if some vehicle component did in fact "approach" the zone would another test, just for 219, be required.

Film analysis is quite advanced today, but tracing the path of an object to within 1/4" of an "imaginary surface" is probably expecting too much. Your comments on this issue would be welcome. If in fact the practice is to not

use the styrofoam template, perhaps the standard should be revised to reflect this. The alternative is very costly. Full vehicle barrier tests cost in excess of $100,000. At a nominal $1000 profit per sale, this translates into 100 sales just for that test. I would suspect that $100,000 plus dollars could be better spent towards a safer vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of these questions, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Keep smiling and have a super day.

ID: nht90-3.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles T. Thomas -- Prestige Travel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Undated letter to NHTSA Chief Counsel from Charles T. Thomas (OCC-4685)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter asking for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that "the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, 1988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States." You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September 1988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your 1985 Jaguar remains in Germany.

We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, 1990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562.

However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that 1985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer.

I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590.

(List of registered importers is omitted.)