ID: nht87-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department 1. Diahatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your question concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. A response to your question concerning Standard No. 219 was sent to you earlier, and we expect to respond to your question concerning Standard No. 201 shortly.

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.

You asked whether Standard No. 101's illumination requirements apply to controls and displays not otherwise regulated by the standard. You quoted section S5.3.3's requirements for the light intensities of informational readout systems and asked whether t hose requirements apply to the following such items: digital clock using liquid crystals; radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals; and miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio c ontrol switches, etc., which are lighted only when the headlights or parking lights are activated.

I would like to note that Standard No. 101's requirements for light intensities were amended in a final rule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. An effective date of March 5, 1987, was adopted for most of the amendments. S ubsequently, in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended 49 CFR Part 511 to permit compliance with either the earlier version of the standard, reissued as Standard No. 100, or the amended standard until September 1, 1989. 52 FR 7150, Marc h 9, 1987. I have enclosed copies of those notices for your convenience.

In answering your question, I will separately discuss the requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and vehicles manufactured before that date.

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must meet the requirements of the current version of Standard No. 101. Section S5.3.5 provides:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the driver's forward field of view which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, must have either a variable intensity, a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off. This requirement shall not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment i lluminated.

As noted in your letter, the items you listed are not among the controls and displays generally regulated by Standard No. 101. However, if sources of illumination for those items are within the driver's forward field of view and are capable of being illu minated while the vehicle is in motion, they must meet the requirements of section S5.3.5.

Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989

Standard No. 100, i.e., the earlier version of Standard No. 101, applies only to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The application sections of Standards Nos. 100 and 101 make it clear that manufacturers have the option of meeting the requir ements of either standard for any control, display or illumination until September 1, 1989. Also, the application section of Standard No. 101 provides that if no requirements are specified in Standard No. 100 for a control, display, or illumination, none need be met as a result of Standard No. 101 for motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989.

Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 100 provides:

Light intensities for controls, gauges, and their identification shall be continuously variable from: (a) A position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditio ns to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph. (Emphasis added.) In considering manufacturer options under Standards No. 100 and 101, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, the following points should be noted:

(1) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are not covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a control located in the rear seating area that is illuminated only when the headlights are activated. Sin ce a manufacturer may meet the requirements of either Standard No. 100 or Standard No. 101 for any illumination and no requirement is specified for such illuminations in Standard No. 101, no requirement need be met for such illuminations.

(2) Some illuminations not covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a clock, located in the driver's forward field of view, which is always illuminated as a result of utilizi ng light emitting diodes. No requirement need be met for such illuminations (for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989).

(3) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are also covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. For these illuminations, the requirements of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 are more flexible. While the highlighte d language of Standard No. 100 provides that such illuminations must, depending on the illumination, be either continuously variable or have at least two values, one for day and one for night, section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 provides three options for all such illuminations. Such illuminations must have either a variable intensity, i.e., at least two levels of intensity; a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions; or a means of being t urned off.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 24 , 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H.Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3) cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that;

"Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph."

However the applicable items(illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us.

We believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mention ed in the standard, such as following illuminations in concrete;

(1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals

(3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS Ho. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as Ill.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as Ill.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

And we also believe that no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation considerably sharply projected armrests such as Ill.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish Ill.2 from Ill.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant , we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability.

Therefore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us ' the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion

Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 219 provides:

"When the vehicle ......, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...."

In the case that the windshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl , or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the veh icle is deemed in compliance or not. (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht87-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1987

FROM: MARTIN V. CHAUVIN -- CHIEF CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU, STATE OF NEW YORK

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES - NHTSA, TO MARTIN CHAUVIN

TEXT: The New York State Department of Transportation is reviewing a proposal to add a requirement for the driver's seat on school buses.

The proposal being reviewed recommends that all driver's seats on school buses be equipped with a pelvic and upper torso restraint or what is referred to as a "Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly." One of the school bus manufacturing companies has indicated that t he upper torso restraint or shoulder harness cannot be provided as it would violate the requirements for head impact protection as contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. As part of our overall review, we ask that this statement be addr essed by your agency.

In reports issued by organizations such as the National Transportation Safety Board, it is indicated that the Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly is far superior to the Type 1 Seat Belt Assembly in passenger car use. It is reasonable to make the assumption that t his superiority would apply equally well to school bus driver seats as well. In considering the vital role the school bus driver is expected to play in the event of an accident, it is extremely important that we provide the best protection available.

We are currently in the process of developing the legislative proposals to amend our laws and would greatly appreciate a timely response to this request. If there is any need to further discuss this request, the undersigned can be reached at (518) 457-1 010.

Thank you.

ID: nht87-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: JONATHAN JACKSON -- COMMERCIAL TESTING CO

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE T O STEVE KRANTZICE

TEXT: Dear Sir:

When we receive a request for the MVSS 302 test, we use the methodology printed in the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 5 - January 8, 1971. It is entitled Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. The test apparatus is a commercially available Horizonta l Burning Cabinet which we purchased from Custom Scientific Instruments. The burner is fueled with natural gas.

Recently, we did a test for you on a fabric. You questioned the use or non-use of wire supports on this type sample. Paragraph S5.1.3 of the Standard states that a "...specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning ..." may be supported with wires. The fabric that we tested for you does not fall into that category. It is supported by the tension of the U-frame and does not distort when it burns. The use of wire supports on this type material may give mis-leading results as the wires act as a heat sink.

Our further interpretation of the Standard (paragraph S5.3 (a)), is that a material which is intended for use in a size less than can be supported by the U-frame, the use of wire supports is acceptable. Further reference is made of paragraph S5.2.1 w hich states that the "...maximum available length or width of a specimen is used where either dimension is less than 14 inches or 4 inches respectively."

Our interpretation of the Standard as noted above does not allow use of wire supports on this type material unless the fabric were intended for use in maximum widths of 4 inches.

If you have any questions, please call me.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 36 NO 5, JANUARY 8, 1971 [OMITTED]

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS

PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, AND BUSES

TEST METHOD

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT & TESTING LABORATORY

FISHER BODY DIVISION

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR TRIM MATERIALS

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

THIS PROCEDURE IS USED TO DETERMINE THE BURNING RATES OF MATERIALS USED IN THE OCCUPANT COMPARTMENTS OF AUTOMOBILES.

II. EQUIPMENT AND/OR MATERIAL REQUIRED

A. THE TEST IS CONDUCTED IN A METAL CABINET TO PROTECT THE TEST SPECIMENS FROM DRAFTS. THE INTERIOR OF THE METAL CABINET IS 381 MM LONG, 203 MM DEEP AND 355 MM HIGH. IT HAS A GLASS OBSERVATION WINDOW IN THE FRONT AND A CLOSABLE OPENING TO PERMIT IN SERTION OF THE ALUMINUM[Illegible Word] SPECIMEN HOLDER. FOR VENTILATION, IT HAS A 13 MM CLEARANCE SPACE AROUND THE TOP OF THE CABINET, TEN 19 MM DIAMETER HOLES IN THE BASE OF THE CABINET AND LEGS TO ELEVATE THE BOTTOM OF THE CABINET BY 10 MM.

1. THE TEST SPECIMEN IS INSERTED BETWEEN TWO MATCHING U-SHAPED FRAMES OF ALUMINUM STOCK 25 MM WIDE AND 10 MM HIGH. THE INTERIOR DIMENSION OF THE U-SHAPED FRAMES ARE 51 MM WIDE BY 330 MM LONG. ALL SPECIMENS ARE KEPT HORIZONTAL WITH HEAT RESISTANT .2 5 MM CHROMEL WIRE SPANNING THE WIDTH OF THE U-SHAPED FRAME UNDER THE SPECIMEN AT 25 MM INTERVALS.

2. AN ALUMINUM STAND IS USED TO SUPPORT THE U-SHAPED FRAME WHICH LOCATES THE TEST SPECIMEN IN THE CENTER OF THE CABINET.

3. A BUNSEN BURNER WITH A TUBE OF 10 MM INSIDE DIAMETER IS USED. THE GAS ADJUSTING VALVE IS SET TO PROVIDE A FLAME WITH THE TUBE VERTICAL OF 38 MM IN HEIGHT. THE AIR INLET TO THE BURNER IS CLOSED.

NOTE: SEE FISHER DRAWING NO. EQ 199 FOR DETAILS REGARDING ALL ABOVE EQUIPMENT.

B. A CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CHAMBER OR EQUIVALENT.

C. CLICKER DIE 100 MM X 355 MM FOR CUTTING TEST SPECIMENS.

FLAMABILITY TEST VARIABLES THAT AFFECT THE BURN RATE WHEN PERFORMING FISHER BODY TM 32-12

1. ALWAYS CLEAN THE U-SHAPED FRAMES BEFORE STARTING EACH BURN TEST (RESIDUE OILS, CARBON, ETC., FORM ON THE U-SHAPED FRAME AFTER EACH TEST)

2. MAKE SURE THE .25 MM CHROMEL WIRES ARE PERFECTLY STRAIGHT (HORIZONTAL). SAGGING WIRES WOULD ALLOW CERTAIN TEST SPECIMENS TO SAG.

3. MAKE SURE THE DOOR ALWAYS FITS FLUSH TO THE TEST CABINET. (FROM TIME TO TIME, HEAT CAUSES THE DOOR NOT TO FIT SMUGLY CAUSING OR ALLOWING A DRAFT).

4. ALWAYS EXCHANGE THE AIR INSIDE THE TEST CABINET WITH FRESH AIR. (AFTER EACH TEST SMOKE WILL STAY INSIDE THE CABINET UNLESS BLOWN OUT). FISHER BODY USES AN AIR JET TO EXCHANGE AIR.

5. KEEP THE FLAMMABILITY TEST CABINET AS NEAR ROOM TEMPERATURE AS POSSIBLE BEFORE STARTING EACH TEST. (SPARE CABINET LIDS, SPARE U-SHAPED FRAMES COMPRESSED AIR ARE USEFUL OPTIONAL ITEMS).

6. LEAD FLAME (FLAME THAT FLASHES FORWARD OF THE MAIN BURNING AREA) USUALLY OCCURS ON VINYL COATED FABRICS AND MUST BE OBSERVED VERY CAREFULLY BY THE OPERATOR.

7. CORRELATION DIFFICULTY - IF PERFORMING DUPLICATE TESTS, ALWAYS CUT SPECIMENS IN THE SAME AREA CONSIDERING THICKNESS, WIDTH, RIBS IF PLASTIC PARTS, ETC.

8. FLAT BLACK INTERIOR CABINET FINISH - A SHINY INTERIOR TENDS TO RADIATE (REFLECT) HEAT INSIDE THE CABINET; ALSO, CAUSES A CLEANING PROBLEM AFTER EACH TEST.

9. VENTILATION HOLES - KEEP OPEN. BURNING MATERIALS AND BLOWN MATERIALS WILL COVER THESE HOLES AND WILL PREVENT AIR CIRCULATION WITHIN THE CABINET.

10. SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION - BE CAREFUL WHEN MARKING SPECIMENS FOR IDENTIFICATION SINCE ENAMELS, INKS, ETC, COULD AFFECT YOUR TEST RESULTS.

THE SPECIMEN IS PRODUCED BY CUTTING THE MATERIAL IN THE DIRECTION THAT PROVIDED THE MOST ADVERSE TEST RESULTS. THE SPECIMEN IS ORIENTED SO THAT THE SURFACE CLOSEST TO THE OCCUPANT COMPARTMENT AIR SPACE FACES DOWNWARD ON THE FRAME.

MATERIAL WITH A NAPPED OR TUFTED SURFACE IS PLACED ON A FLAT SURFACE AND COMBED TWICE AGAINST THE NAP WITH A COMB HAVING SEVEN TO EIGHT SMOOTH ROUNDED TEETH PER 25 MM.

PRIOR TO TESTING, EACH SPECIMEN IS CONDITIONED FOR 24 HOURS AT A TEMPERATURE OF 21 DEGREES C + 1.5 DEGREES C AND A RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF -0.0

50% + 0.0. TO FACILITATE HANDLING, SEVERAL PIECES MAY BE TAKEN - 5%

FROM THE HUMIDITY CHAMBER AND PLACED IN A POLYETHYLENE BAG TO RETAIN MOISTURE UNTIL THEY ARE TO BE BURNED.

V. TEST PROCEDURE

A. MOUNT THE SPECIMEN SO THAT BOTH SIDES AND ONE END ARE HELD BY THE U-SHAPED FRAME AND ONE END IS EVEN WITH THE OPEN END OF THE FRAME. WHERE THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE WIDTH OF A SPECIMEN CANNOT BE HELD IN THE U-SHAPED FRAME, PLACE THE SPECIMEN IN POSIT ION ON WIRE SUPPORTS AS DESCRIBED IN 11A.1., WITH ONE END HELD BY THE CLOSED END OF THE U-SHAPED FRAME. SPECIMENS SHORTER THAN 355 MM MAY BE POSITIONED ON THE WIRE SUPPORTS AND ALIGNED WITH THE OPEN END OF THE FRAME FOR IGNITION PURPOSES.

B. PLACE THE MOUNTED SPECIMEN IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION IN THE CENTER OF THE CABINET.

C. WITH THE FLAME ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO II A.3, POSITION THE BUNSEN BURNER AND SPECIMEN SO THAT THE CENTER OF THE BURNER TIP IS 19 MM BELOW THE CENTER OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE OPEN END OF THE SPECIMEN.

D. EXPOSE THE SPECIMEN TO THE FLAME FOR 15 SECONDS.

E. BEGIN TIMING (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PERIOD OF APPLICATION OF THE BURNER FLAME) WHEN THE FLAME FROM THE BURNING SPECIMEN REACHES A POINT 38 MM FROM THE OPEN END OF THE SPECIMEN.

F. MEASURE THE TIME THAT IT TAKES THE FLAME TO PROGRESS TO A POINT 38 MM FROM THE CLAMPED END OF THE SPECIMEN. IF THE FLAME DOES NOT REACH THE SPECIFIED END POINT, TIME ITS PROGRESS TO THE POINT WHERE FLAMING STOPS.

ID: nht87-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: SIDNEY A. GARRETT -- PRESIDENT BROWN CARGO VAN INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON, LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/28/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO SIDNEY A. GARRETT, REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 102, STANDARD 108, TRUCK SIDE MARKETS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and would like to have an interpretation of the regulations regarding the placement of intermediate lamps and reflectors. We are currently installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lowe r rail as indicated on the attached drawings.

We are of the opinion that we are installing lights and reflectors on the front part of each side that are unnecessary under current federal regulations.

Would you please send us your interpretation of these regulations for our files. Additionally, could you indicate whether compliance with federal regulations constitutes compliance with the various states' regulations since our van bodies are sold ac ross the country.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht87-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/87

FROM: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COURIER, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 10-15-87, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO CHRISTINE COTTLE, VSA 102(4), VSA 108 (A)(2)(A)

TEXT: We are interested in obtaining information regarding any federal regulations that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck.

Specifically we are anxious to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items. I refer to such decorations as hanging dice, air fresheners, etc.

Any information you can give me would be most appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wil de Groot -- President, Exoticars of Hunterdon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wil de Groot

TEXT:

Mr. Wil de Groot President Exoticars of Hunterdon 6 Washington Street Frenchtown, NJ 08825

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1987, with respect to your further questions on Federal regulation of kit cars.

You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, final drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.

Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of your own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resul ting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owners and remedy noncompliances with the safety standards or safety related defects shou ld they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.

If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle, we should regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regard ed as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to compete assembly.

You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would be mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chassis, the resulting vehicle is not subject to Federal motor vehi cle standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a "manufacturer" under federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in th e product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.

If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but all parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a "manufacturer" depends upon the parts that the purchase must provide.

Finally, you have asked, "if actual crash tests. . .have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?" There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those st andards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test pro cedures, but his certification may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advise you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) for in formation on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MS. ERIKA Z. JONES U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

4.2.1987

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thank you for your reply of Feb. 24 1987 to my letter of January 12, 1987 regarding regulations for home built or car kits.

What we have in mind is to take, for example, a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 (federal version) remove the engine, transmission, final drive, suspension, steering, brakes, etc. and all safety and emission related items and after refurbishing these parts, install them on a new chassis with a new body of our own (U.S.) manufacture. We are familiar with the process of bringing a gray market car into compliance with Federal regulations, having gone through the process and wondering if this same process, complete with all applicable engineering data, photo's and paperwork could somehow be applied to a limited production rebodied and rechassied vehicle without the expense of crashing cars into a wall.

If actual crash tests have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?

The following are the specifics that I hope will allow you to give me the answers I am looking for,:

-Chassis- New made in U.S.A. (first choice) -Chassis- Used original chassis but modified to accept new body (second choice)

-Old parts used- Engine, transmission, final drive, axles, brakes, steering, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harnesses, seats, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switc h buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks. Impact absorbing bumper supports, etc.

-Suppled to Consumer fully assembled- (first choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts supplied (second choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts not supplied (third choice)

-Parts- Used would come from federal version of imported cars or domestic cars. All parts including new would meet D.O.T. & E.P.A. specifications.

Thank you in advance, I hope you can help us.

Sincerely,

Wil de Groot, President

ID: nht87-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R.O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the test procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response.

You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 o f the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track "stop" and move a power bench or bucket seat to its "full forward" and "full down" position. As explained be low, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency ha s recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the iss ue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manuf acturer in its certification tests. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.

You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example, S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7 .4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.

However, the latchplate access requirement of S7.4.4 of the standard does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment positi on. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position used by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation of the requirements of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S10.6 prescribes that the seat shall be "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining th e seat belt latchplate reach envelopes. Based on our review of Standard 208, we interpret "forwardmost adjustment position" to mean that a manually adjustable bench or bucket seat is moved to the forward seat track "stop" and in similar manner a power be nch or bucket seat is moved to its "full forward" position while in the "full down" position. These adjustment procedures provide a consistent test dummy location which we believe is the NHTSA's intent for conducting the prescribed tests for both manual and power seats.

The above interpretation of "forwardmost adjustment" position was discussed with Mr. Edward Jettner of the Office of Vehicle Standards. He concurred with our interpretation, but suggested that we seek confirmation of it.

We believe that the above interpretation is correct based on other discussions of seat adjustment in the standards. Paragraph S7.4.3 of MVSS 208 provides:

S7.4.3, Belt Contact Force, is tested in accordance with S10.7 which, in turn, requires that the user "--position the test dummy in the vehicle in accordance with -- S10.1 or S10.2 and -- S8.1.2 and S8.1.3." S8.1.2 requires that "adjustable seats are -- midway between forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position; (underlined for emphasis)

Paragraph S.7.4.5 adds:

S7.4.5, Retraction, is also "tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 --."

Paragraph S4.3.2 of MVSS 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, similarly provides at a power seat is to be adjusted to full down position:

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. With the seat in its full rearward and downward position . . . . (underlined for emphasis).

From these references, we conclude that for consistency in positioning the test dummy for purposes of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, a power seat is adjusted to the forwardmost "full downward" position and a manual seat track is adjusted to the forwardmost position. We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

R.O. Sornson

ID: nht87-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWIN M. SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 2-19-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, TO EDWIN SPEARS JR., REDBOOK A31

TEXT: As suggested by Deirere Hom, I am writing to seek assistance with an issue facing some public school systems in North Carolina.

Some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet federal schoolbus specifications. These vans are used primarily to transport teachers and administrators, but are also used from time to time to transport students to extracurricular activities .

I am familiar with the definitions of "schoolbus" in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14) and in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.3, but am uncertain about how these definitions apply to the circumstance described above. My specific questions are:

1. Are school systems prohibited by federal law from using vans that do not meet federal school bus standards to transport students to extracurricular activities on a regular basis or on an occasional basis?

2. Has the Secretary adopted any regulations that define the term "significantly" as it appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (14)?

Any assistance you could give me with these questions would be appreciated.

ID: nht90-3.69

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 27, 1990

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 210, Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Shapiro (A36; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Section 4.3.2 of FMVSS 210 sets forth the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of type 2 seat belt assemblies. Section 3 defines seat belt anchorage as the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structu re.

Volvo is currently designing a type 2 seat belt assembly for the rear seating positions of a proposed vehicle. The retractor is mounted within the seat back, in order to improve the seat belt geometry, to increase the comfort of the occupants, and to al low movement of the seat back. The retractor is located outside of the zone specified in Section 4.3.2, figure 1. However, the shoulder portion of the belt travels from the retractor through a device we are calling a "belt anchor", which is the functio nal equivalent of a d-ring. Kindly see the attached drawings, Appendices A & B, for clarity.

The belt anchor is located within the specified zone. Its function is to transfer the seat belt assembly load to the vehicle structure, and to determine the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.

This belt anchor complies with the force requirements of the standard. Please see the attached drawings, Appendices C, D & E for the forces in the proposed design. For comparison, Appendices F & G show the forces on a current vehicle.

Volvo believes that a correct interpretation of FMVSS 210 in this case is that the belt anchor is the upper anchorage point for this seat belt system. Please confirm this for us.

Our engineers must finalize the design by this Fall. As such, we respectfully request that you reply by November 1, 1990.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, kindly contact Linda Gronlund of my office at 201-767-4815.

ID: nht90-3.7

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Motors Saipan, Inc.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re REF: 2013-138

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. J ones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas

TEXT:

I have written letters to you in the past regarding the FMVSS compliance in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), but have never seen any action.

It is my understanding that the FMVSS apply in full force to the CNMI. As such, I have dutifully refrained from bringing in nonconforming vehicles. Due to the apparent complete failure of any local enforcement (as admitted by local officials--see enclos ed letter), my competitors are not so constrained and are engaging in what seems like unfair competition by bringing in cheap nonconforming vehicles.

Now it is okay with me if you have no interest in "compliance enforcement" in the CNMI. Perhaps it's better for the people? I can get the cheap nonconforming cars too. All I want is a level playing field, and to know the rules. Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?

Attachment

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor Capitol Hill, Saipan MP/USA 96950 The Honorable Ben Blaz Phone: (670) 322-5091/2/3 Member of Congress Telefax: (670) 322-5096/99 1130 Longworth House Office Building Telex: 783-622 Gov.NMIWashington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Blaz:

Re: Triple J Motors - Bob Jones - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Applicability to the CNMI

We reply to your letter to us of October 5, 1990. You explain that Mr.

Bob Jones, of Triple J Motors, has a problem. It goes like this. Triple J, apparently, makes sure all the vehicles it imports and registers in the Commonwealth are in compliance with the FMVSS. Triple J fears possible federal enforcement action or. po ssibly worse, a customer law suit arising

from an auto accident and grounded on the company's failure to sell cars safety equipped to federal standards.

Compliance with these standards raises Triple J's investment in the automobiles so equipped. This added investment must be taken into consideration when Triple J sets its retail prices. Triple J's competitors in the Commonwealth, by design or accident, don't uniformly follow the federal standards. The competitor's retail prices need not, therefore, include consideration of the added cost of equipping vehicles for compliance with the FMVSS. Because of this, Triple J feels at a competitive disadvantag e in the market place. Triple J seeks a level playing field: It wants all CNMI automobile dealers compelled to follow the federal safety rules or, alternatively, that none of them including itself, be compelled to follow the rules.

Mr. Jones asks you for help. What would he have you do? He wants you to see to it that the CNMI enforces the FMVSS or he wants you to obtain a declaration, preferably from the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Transportation, that the federal safety standards don't apply in the CNMI. Before taking action, you ask for our comments and views. Here they are.

We only enforce laws that apply in the CNMI. Do these federal safety standards apply in the CNMI? By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979. It looks like we get the law. But this is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for sel f-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. Besides, consider the practicality of the situation. We move slowly on two lanes roads up and down twelve and fourteen mile long islands. Our drivers aren't hooked into a vast system of U.S. interstate highways where uniform safety equipment might be necessary to protect highspeed free ways carrying commerce between the states. We can't even drive to Tinian. We're small, wind-swept islands out here without even a traffic light.

I will say this, however: If I find that our people need the protection of some or all of the motor vehicle safety standards included in the FMVSS program, I'll be the first to move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law. Until then , it is our position that the FMVSS does not apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

If you address this matter on a national level, Congressman, please take our views into consideration. Thank you so much for consulting us. You

are a true friend of the Northern Marianas.

Sincerely,

LORENZO I. DE LEON GUERRERO Governor

cc: Lt. Governor Resident Representative to the United States Director, Department of Public Safety Director, Department of Finance Triple J Motors