ID: nht80-4.25

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cragar Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked me to respond to your October 14, 1980, letter asking for a clarification of the basis upon which it was suggested that your wheel spinners may not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps.

Standard No. 211 prohibits the manufacture or assembly of wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps that incorporate winged projections. This safety standard has been in effect since 1968 and was implemented at that time, because it was determined that these devices presented potential safety hazards to pedestrians and to cyclists. Prior to 1968, manufacturers were constructing devices with winged projections that extended quite far from the wheel. To prevent this from arising again, the agency issued the standard prohibiting the manufacture of all such devices.

From reviewing the wheel spinner that you are producing, our technical staff has concluded that it incorporates a winged projection of the type prohibited by the standard. Accordingly, our staff notified you of your possible noncompliance. I trust that this clarifies the basis of our investigation. Any questions that you have with respect to this possible noncompliance should be referred to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Pursuant to your request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will provide confidential treatment, subject to the limitation of 15 U.S.C. 1418(a)(2)(B), for the total production figure in paragraph 4 of your October 14 letter.

ID: nht80-4.26

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking questions with respect to the term "overall vehicle width" contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle to be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing "overall vehicle width." Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.

Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are such that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.

Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc.

October 30, 1980

The Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt

Subject: FMVSS108 Interpretation

File: S203.108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is a wholly owned subsidiary of IVECO, (Industrial Vehicles Company) B.V. of Amsterdam, Holland. As such we act as importers into the United States of two lines of trucks. One of these lines is the new IVECO Z Range built in Brescia, Italy. It is with regard to this vehicle that we have some questions concerning FMVSS108 and request an offical interpretation. In particular, FMVSS108 makes a basic division of vehicle lighting requirements by "overall vehicle width" defined in 40 CFR, Part 571.3, Definitions. The current definition to the best of our knowledge is: "Overall vehicle width means the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight ahead position."

With regard to this definition:

1) Are door handles to be considered as a part of the vehicle to be included in the "overall vehicle width" or is the intent of the definition to take into account only the major body structure as would seem to be indicated by the list of exceptions?

2) If a vehicle were designed such that the "nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle" was above 80 inches, but the tolerance was such that specific vehicles might in reality be manufactured below 80 inches.

a) Do such vehicles, which physically measure under 80 inches, require the marker/identification lamps per greater than 80" width requirements or should they more properly meet the lighting requirements for vehicles under 80"?

In affect, what is the meaning of "nominal design width" and how does it relate to compliance of vehicles which physically meet one criteria while technically appear to meet another.

These questions are of great concern to us, therefore we would appreciate as prompt an interpretive reply as possible. If clarification or additional information is required, please do not hesitate to call me at the above address and phone number. If a meeting is deemed necessary, I am likewise available. Thank you for your assistance.

Carl G. F. Pedersen

cc: N. GOODWIN

ID: nht80-4.27

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses must have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back.

The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to a side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing.

A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit if the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION

October 28, 1980

Roy Shannon U.S. Department of Transportation N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Shannon:

I am writing to you reference our conversation about the 1980 Thomas School Bus Body with the Side Emergency Door. I have enclosed pictures and a sketch with measurements.

In further inspection of this Emergency Door, I find it quite difficult to exit, especially if you are sitting in the seat located in the door opening. (The State of Wisconsin Rule MVD 17 requires a 12 inch aisle to the Emergency Door zone.)

I am interested in the application of your Standard No. 217, Section S5.4.2.1 (b) which reads: In the case of a side emergency door, an opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide. A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. Does this mean that there must be an opening with access or does it mean that there must only be an opening in the side of the bus that size? The seat blocks this emergency door opening so that there is not an opening 45 inches by 24 inches.

Thank you for your interest and attention and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Ronald H. Wonders Inspector III

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.28

DATE: 12/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motors Corp. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 26, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

In your letter you ask whether 1981 model year vehicles produced before the effective date of the standard, September 1, 1980, need comply with the standard. It would not be a violation of Standard No. 115 to produce 1981 model year vehicles which do not comply with the standard so long as they were manufactured prior to September 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 26, 1980

Ref. 80-116-M

Frederic W. Schwartz -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter is in response to your telephone request concerning 1981 Datsun Models' VIN Systems (new and old).

After our plants in Japan took their summer vacation (August 9-17, 1980), Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Model Vehicles with new VIN System Numbers that have seventeen (17) characters and meet the new requirements of FMVSS No. 115, VIN which has been applied to the vehicles that have been produced on and after September 1, 1980.

However, before the summer vacation mentioned above, Nissan produced 1981 Datsun Models with old VIN System Numbers because the new machines for the New VIN Numbers were introduced into our plants during the summer vacation. There are approximately 34,430 Datsun 1981 Models with old VIN Numbers (Attachment).

Nissan has been guaranteed by the Federal Government that we are not violating the Federal Law by using the old VIN System Numbers on 1981 Model Vehicles produced before August 31, 1980.

We hope this information will be sufficient for your needs. Your taking the information mentioned above into consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Hisakazu Murakami -- Washington Representative, Safety

Attachment

VIN. FOR DATSUN '81 MODELS OLD VIN. NEW VIN. Model Starting Beginning Production Starting Beginning Production Vin. Volume Production VIN.

Date Date 210 80.07.31. LB310-077293 JN1 CB02S 7 BU 080076 HLB310-746820 80.08.20. JN1 HB02S 0 BU 450001 PLB310-547078 8,138 JN1 PB02S 9 BU 650001 WPLB310-035876 JN1 PB01S 5 BU 150001 KPLB310-220965 JN1 PB05S 9 BU 038005 80.07.02 PN10-000036 80.08.19 JN1 PN03S X BM 000888 310 2,875 JN1 PN06S 2 BM 000735 KPN10-000027 JN1 PN04S 9 BM 000668 510 80.08.01 HLA10-200031 1,542 80.08.18 JN1 HT02S 5 BT 200160 FHLA10-200031 JN1 HT03S 0 BT 200338 510 80.07.22 WHLA10-125001 594 80.08.18 JN1 HT05S 8 BX 125667 Wagon 810 80.07.14 HG910-000101 491 80.08.18 JN1 HU01S 8 BT 000596 810 80.06.27 WHD910-000001 270 80.08.18 JN1 HU05S 0 BX 000322 Wagon 200SX 80.07.31 PS110-215386 80.08.20JN1 PS06S 6 2,830 BU 400001 KPS110-038159 JN1 PS04S 6 BU 300001 280ZX 30.06.23 HS130-250021 7,170 80.08.18 JN1 HZ04S 9 BX 254601 HGS130-180040 JN1 HZ06S 0 BX 182555 Pickup 80.07.07 No. 1 Plant NO. 1 Plant M720-000012 JN6 MD01S 2 BW 002786 MG720-000011 10,520 80.08.18 JN6 MD02S X BW 001903 KM720-000021 JN6 MD06S X BW 002972 EM720-000016 JN6 MD05H 6 BW 000036 MY720-000008 JN6 MD01Y 1 BW 001424 KMY720-000004 JN6 MD06Y 0 BW 001942 NO. 2 Plant NO. 2 Plant MGY720-000001 JN6 MD02Y 8 BW 500493

Total, 34,430

ID: nht80-4.29

DATE: 12/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 10, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether Ford may make a minor variation in the language specified in S5.5.2(g) for the label that must be permanently affixed to child restraints. As explained below, you may use the language proposed in your letter.

Section 5.5.1 of the standard requires that each child restraint be permanently labeled with specified information. Section 5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g)-(k) must be displayed on the child restraint so that it is visible when the restraint is installed in the vehicle.

You state that the only information specified for the visible label that is applicable to the Ford "TOT GUARD" is the language in S5.5.2(g). That section provides that the child restraint must be labeled with the following words:

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED .

You are concerned that the above language may create potential confusion for users of the "TOT GUARD" since the user might be led to believe that more than one instruction is applicable. In your proposed revision, the word "each of" would be deleted from the warning and the word "instructions" would be changed to the singular.

Your proposed revision does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the warning specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language for restraints that only need to be labeled with one of the specified instructions, it is permitted.

SINCERELY,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

November 10, 1980

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I request confirmation that the following variation of the language specified in subsection S5.5.2(g) acceptably meets the requirements of subsection S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213.

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING [INSTRUCTIONS] CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED UNDER THE SEAT PAD.

None of the instructions specified in subsections S5.5.2(h) through (k) of Standard No. 213 is appropriate for the installation of Ford's "TOT GUARD" child restraint system. Accordingly, were our labelling to employ literally the language set forth in subsection S5.5.2(g), the user would be provided with a single cautionary instruction following the warning paragraph but led to believe by the warning paragraph that more than one instruction is applicable. To avoid potential confusion on this point, we propose to delete the words and letter bracketed and struck-through above and add the underlined language.

I am confident that the Administration will find Ford's proposed version of the warning and instruction language for its TOT GUARD label unobjectionable. I should appreciate, however, having your confirmation that this is the case.

D. G. McGuigan

CC: J. A. STARKEY

ID: nht80-4.3

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 4, 1980 letter to this office in which you requested confirmation that a certain tire size was listed for use with a particular rim size in a tire publication recognized by this agency for purposes of Standard 110. Page 1-11 of the 1980 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association lists a 5 1/2 inch rim as appropriate for use with 185/7OR14 tires. Thus, use of the 5 1/2 inch rims with that size tire would satisfy the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of Standard 110.

If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

September 4, 1980

Steven R. Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Please confirm that radial tires sized 185/70HR14 are listed in an NHTSA-recognized tire publication for use with a 5 1/2J x 14 wheel rim and that this combination therefore meets the tire and rim matching requirements of FMVSS 110.

Thank you for your assistance.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Bruce Henderson

ID: nht80-4.4

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which you posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.

(1) No, T&RA design information is not considered part of the T&RA yearbook for purposes of Standard 119. Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.

(2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) published November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.

(3) The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by this agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, your company requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II in a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.

(4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tires with a load range greater than "J" in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load range "J" tires, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.

(5) When your company submits matching information to this agency pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119. it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.

(6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests for tubeless tires with load ranges greater than "J". The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard was being developed. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information on the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition you referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

July 17, 1980

Ref. No.: HH-80-152

Office of Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We would appreciate your comments on the following questions relative to FMVSS 119.

1) Is TRA Engineering Design Information regarded as a part of the TRA Yearbook from the approval standpoint of FMVSS 119?

2) The latest table of Plunger Energy in FMVSS 119 that we have in our file is as of November 13, 1973. If this is not the latest one available, what is the most current?

3) We understand ETRTO sent a petition to you on November 2, 1977 regarding the Plunger Energy setting of "L" at 21,000 lbs. and "M" at 23,200 lbs. We would like to know if this has been approved by NHTSA.

4) Since the highest load ranges is "J" in our table, we have been testing our 18R22.5 20PR tire at load range "J" for Plunger Energy. We would like to know if this is appropriate.

5) We understand that we are supposed to submit Matching information to you whenever we come up with a new size tire in FMVSS 119. We do distribute this type of information to our dealers and end-users. Is it satisfactory for us to send a copy of this Matching information to you or should we submit a letter to you for this purpose?

6) We believe that we are not the only one with these questions and we wonder if a similar petition has been submitted from other associations or manufacturers.

Thank you in advance for your time in answering the above questions. We will be looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

Hiromi Hamaya -- Vice President, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht80-4.5

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Elgene Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.

(1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes all motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard; provided, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.

(2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may be used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.

(3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must be marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.

(4) For purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have been interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number "1" above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up to $ 1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $ 6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.

Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).

If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in the last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to "each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service." Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.

You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish a notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If you would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

SINCERELY,

August 15, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

In reference to U.S. Department of Transportation 571.120 standard no. 120: Tire Selection for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S5.1.3 specifically.

It is my interpretation that:

1. New trailers, trailer/container chassis, trucks and buses, may be equipped with retread tires utilizing salvaged, used, worn tire bodies.

2. These retreads may not be used on steering axles.

3. The worn, used tire bodies (casings) must have been manufactured on and after January 1, 1978, as evidenced by the DOT symbol marked on one sidewall.

4. The purchaser of the equipment may use retread tires on these new vehicles when he requests the chassis manufacturer to install same.

Would you please give me your interpretation of the above. I have great difficulty in competitively securing new chassis O.E.M. retread business with the opposition ignoring the requirements as I interpret them to be. This is a very viable segment of the retread industry since retreads salvage worn tires by consuming far less energy and oil than do new tires.

Are there penalties for non-conforming?

Are there any enforcement procedures?

If the new chassis, trailers, etc. were shipped without tires at all -- would the D.O.T. 120/119 casing (used) tire requirement be applicable?

If further personal discussions are necessary please feel free to call upon me. I urge you to respond quickly.

Gene S. Rosenfeld, President

ID: nht80-4.6

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries, Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart, Indiana 46514

Dear Mr. Spretnjak:

This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.

Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note that Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.

Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installed as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.

Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a van conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, Certification.

Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to any vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.

Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the sun roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.

Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your only responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.

Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safety standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assesiing continued compliance with the standards.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 15, 1980

Roger Tilton ESQ Attorney Adviser Office of the Chief Council Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Per our telephone conversation on August 12, 1980, this formal request for assistance is forwarded to your attention.

Excel Industries is a manufacturer of aftermarket sunroof products and specialty windows. The product consists of a glass lite, aluminum frame and plastic handle (see attached sketch for more details).

The product would be sold thru and to auto body shops, van converters and aftermarket distribution centers. The installation of the product could be done at facilities of the afore mentioned sales outlets or by the general public. The ultimate end use of the product and type of vehicle installation after sales are not controlled.

Based on the above information the question of product liability with regard to compliance and certification to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be addressed.

Your assistance is required to answer the following questions:

ITEM #1 If a sunroof assembly is installed by an original equipment manufacturer (ie. Ford, GMC, Chrysler) on a domestic or Import vehicle, should the installer of the unit certify the product?

ITEM #2 If a sunroof assembly is installed by a motor home builder and/or van converter should the installer certify the product and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #3 If a vehicle is not titled ie. altered by dealer before sale, should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #4 If a body shop installs a sun roof for an individual should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #5 As a window manufacturer is it true that the certifications to FMVSS #205 and possibly FMVSS #217 are only FMVSS specifications that must be certified?

ITEM #6 Most FMVSS require testing on the final and completed vehicle. Does this place the burden of testing and/or certifying compliance on the OEM or final stage finisher? When a vehicle is altered can certification be attained by the following methods?

1) Retesting the entire vehicle 2) Simulate static testing the original vehicle versus the altered vehicle 3) Mathematically models 4) Can the installer by any other process, whereby, with due care provide evidence that the altered vehicle is as applicable to meeting the standard as the original vehicle.

A response prior to October 1, 1980, would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation,

EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

S.A. Spretnjak

Attachment SAS/lmv cc: JEC PJT ALG

ID: nht80-4.7

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William Blythe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. William Blythe 1545 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Dear Mr. Blythe:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216 Roof Crush Resistance (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.

Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on the test block to be applied "essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block." Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.

Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contact point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline on the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.

I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specified in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 24, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Streee, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Huyh Oates, Esq.

Reference: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars"

Gentlemen:

This letter is pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates, on August 7, 1980. I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Ed Jettner, NHTSA Project Engineer for MVSS 216, in an attempt to clarify certain aspects of that Standard. My organization is preparing to conduct tests in accordance with MVSS 216, and we perceive certain apparent ambiguities in the Test Procedure (paragraph S.6 of MVSS 216), for which we need clarification. Essentially, we have two questions to which we seek answers.

1. What should be the location of the applied force with respect to the upper surface of the test block?

Paragraph S6.3 reads: "Apply force in a downward direction to the lower (sic) surface of the test device...," but does not specify the location of the force on the surface of the block. Figure 1 seems to imply that the applied force should be centered in the upper surface of the block, but the location of the force is not dimensioned. Clearly, if the applied force could be located directly opposite the point of initial contact of the test block with the roof, the load transmitted to the roof would be unchanged, and at the same time the loading frame needed to maintain the block at its specified angles would be much simpler to construct. Thus the question is, can the applied force on the block be located essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block? This location is much preferred over the control location implied in Figure 1 of the specification because the test frame is thereby greatly simplified and no change results in the loads transmitted to the roof.

2. Should the ten-inch dimension from the leading edge of the loading block to the initial contact point be maintained even if this locates the leading edge of the block aft of the A-pillar (or leading edge of the roof)?

Paragraph S6.2(d) specifies that the "initial contact point ... is ... 10 inches from the forwardmost point..." of the loading block. Also, Figure 1 implies that the forward edge of the block is forward of the leading edge of the roof. For some roof configurations (which tend to be high in the center), holding the ten-inch requirement will move the leading edge of the block to a position aft of the leading edge of the roof. In such a situation, should the ten-inch dimension be maintained, or should the leading edge of the loading block remain forward of the A-pillar, thus increasing the ten-inch dimension? In order to simulate, even approximately, the actual loading which might be encountered in a roll-over, it would seem desirable to keep the leading edge of the loading block forward of the A-pillar so that the A-pillars are loaded directly.

Because of our test program schedule, we would appreciate your response at the earliest possible time.

Very truly yours,

William Blythe, Ph.D.

WB:gh