ID: nht92-9.53

DATE: January 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tadoru Yamamoto -- Technical Administration Div., Hino Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 from Tadoru Yamamoto to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6648)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines "hood" as "any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment" (S3).

Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a "hood" as defined by Standard 113.

We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system.

Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood.

We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.54

DATE: January 13, 1992

FROM: Phil Gray -- Inventor, Westech U.S.A. Inc.

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

COPYEE: Ed Jettner

TITLE: Re: Child Shoulder Belt Positioning Device

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Firstly I would like to thank your staff especially Deirdre Fujita for all her help and the faxed letter she forwarded to me, I have enclosed a copy for your reference. Its nice to know that the little guy can still be heard in Washington. I read through the faxed letter and all the points that were brought up have been addressed and solved by my invention. If you would be so kind I would like to take a minute to give you a little background about myself.

My name is Phil Gray and I am an inventor, I have started a company Westech U.S.A. Inc. in Vermont to market my inventions.

One of my Inventions is a device that positions the car's Shoulder Belt in the correct position for children between 38 and 60 inches in height. Prior to the conception of the "CHILD-SAVER" there was no method for children to ride in a car using the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belt System in a safe and legal manner. Please refer to the accompanying product information.

The "CHILD-SAVER" has been designed to ensure the correct position of the Shoulder Belt up to the point of Impact. At the point of Impact the full weight of the child loads the Shoulder Belt holding it in the preset (correct) position during the Impact and Post Impact Stages of a collision. The designed "Break Away" Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot Section located at the top of the "CHILD-SAVER" is detached by the forces exerted on it at the point of impact thus allowing the "CHILD-SAVER" to rotate away from the child therefore preventing any possibility of contact with the child's head during the collision. With the position of the child's body at the point that the Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot "Breaks Away" there is no chance that the piece could possibly strike the child. This design has been proven effective with repeated Impact Crash Tests. I have enclosed a VHS tape of the Impact Test and some Test Results as well as some product samples.

With the "CHILD-SAVER" left unusable after a severe impact it is assured that it will be replaced as recommended by the manufacturer.

As the "CHILD-SAVER" is new technology that addresses and solves a Child Restraint problem that until now has not been dealt with, the only Standards that are available to test against are those for Child Safety Seats. It is expected that new standards will be written as this device proves it's worth in the market place.

All Impact Tests were run at 30 mph which is the accepted standard. The force of Impact in each test was equal to 20 G's, meaning the weight of a 501b child would be equal to 1000lbs during the collision.

Impact Crash Testing has clearly shown the Life Saving benefits of a Shoulder Belt that is correctly positioned prior to a collision. The same tests have also illustrated in dramatic fashion the Fatal Injuries inflicted upon the child when the Shoulder Belt is incorrectly positioned around the neck area.

Pertaining to the letter that was to faxed me by Deirdre.

i. Now that the technology exists it would be logical to develop a safety Standard that would require that the Seat Belt System to be operationally safe for children who are to large for Car Safety Seats or Booster Seats but to small for the present Shoulder Belts.

ii. I assure you that Westech U.S.A. will comply with Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act.

iii. Under normal operating conditions the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belts do not comply with Section S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208. However with the installation of the CHILD- SAVER compliance is achieved.

iv. With the installation of the CHILD-SAVER the length of Shoulder Belt used is increased by only one inch. It should be pointed out that the increased length is not in the form of loose belt, but used to tightly traverse the length of the CHILD-SAVER.

v. It is unknown if the CHILD-SAVER violates Section 108(a)(2)(A) for it does modify the position of the Shoulder Belt but by doing so enhances its performance by eliminating a fatal injury to the child which would normally occur

Could you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request.

ID: nht92-9.55

DATE: January 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John H. Heinrich -- District Director of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: Case No. 92-2704-00015

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/05/91 from John H. Heinrich and Kathleen M. Tobin to the Office of Chief Counsel, DOT (OCC 6758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 5, 1991, enclosing a petition for relief from the forfeiture of "200 Spinner Wheel Nuts" seized by the Customs Service as violative of 49 CFR Sec. 571.211. The petitioner expresses the opinion that the wheel nuts should be exempt from DOT regulations, stressing safety considerations and the need to replace worn parts on vehicles manufactured in the 1950's. You have also enclosed a copy of the petitioner's own parts list that identifies the wheel nuts as part of a conversion kit, intended to replace disc wheels with wire wheels.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR 571.211, precludes, for use on passenger cars, wheel nuts that incorporate winged projections. The chrome wheel nuts depicted in the Moss Motors catalogue page which you enclosed (Parts Nos. 200-210 and 200-220) clearly incorporate winged projections, and are the type of wheel nuts that Standard No. 211 addresses and prohibits. As such, they may not be imported for sale in the United States.

We have discounted petitioner's safety arguments. This is the first allegation in the nearly 24 years that the standard has been in effect that the spinners are required to replace original equipment, implying that there is no acceptable substitute that would conform with Standard No. 211. In our view, no justification has been shown for granting the petition.

ID: nht92-9.56

DATE: January 7, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe S. Brito -- Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 (est) from Joe S. Brito to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to INDEPENDENTLY certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing

requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.57

DATE: January 7, 1992

FROM: Thomas J. Magnan -- Sergeant, Traffic Safety Division, Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis, Mo.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: "Hella" brand Position Indicator Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas Magnan (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I saw a demonstration of the new "Hella" brand Position Indicator Lamp at a safety show I attended in British Columbia, in September 1991.

I have since contacted a Hella distributor in St. Louis, Mo with questions on where this may be purchased and the price of the item. He informs me that Hella of Germany has told him that to sell or install this item on a vehicle in the United States is against the law, as it has not as yet been approved for sale or use in this country. I then contacted a Mr. Scott Toivanen at 1-604-687-7779 with the Canadian Distributor OBIRON ENTERPRISES INC. Mr. Toivanen informed me that he has attended meeting with representatives from this country, specifically NHTSA and DOT-OMC, and both agencies approved of this device, so long as the maximum vehicle width was not exceeded. I contacted Mr. Kevin Cavey at NHTSA, who was reportedly at one of these meetings and Mr. Cavey told me he didn't know what I was talking about, and suggested I write to you.

Please advise as to whether this item may be used on vehicles in the United States, providing the maximum vehicle width of 102.36 inches is not exceeded.

Enclosed please find related information on the product.

Attachments (Text and graphics omitted):

Brochure entitled IPS Corporation Introduces the Position Indicator Lamp. Indicates that the lamp is distributed in Alberta and British Columbia by Obiron Enterprises Inc.

Copy of a letter from Claus Bergmeier, President of International Product Specialities (IPS), announcing a new safety marker lamp for commercial vehicle application.

Copy of a report, dated 2/5/91, from the Canadian Standards Association, containing the results of examinations and tests of the IPS position indicator lamp. Demonstrates compliance with applicable SAE standards.

ID: nht92-9.58

DATE: January 7, 1992

FROM: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen C. Bartch (A39; Part 567; Std. 301)

TEXT:

We propose to convert the Ford E-series vans to our 4X4 drive system; however, the tank in the 1992 vans interferes with our transfer case placement.

After much consideration and examining other Ford tank arrangements on 4X4 vehicles, we came to the conclusion that to keep certification costs down and still show due-care in reference to FMVSS 301, we should either:

A. find a tank manufacturer that can build a tank with identical attachments as the OEM tank, or B. modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference.

We found a tank supplier who can manufacture the tank to our specifications, so we can pursue both options.

The question that some of our customers are asking is about the legality of our fuel tank retrofit in regards to FMVSS 301. Could you summarize in writing our responsibilities regarding FMVSS 301 and state that we are not required by law to do crash testing on our vehicles?

Thank you for your cooperation and willingness to accommodate us.

ID: nht92-9.59

DATE: 01/06/92

FROM: Joseph B. Gordon -- Manager of Engineering, ESI BRAKE PARTS, DIVISION OF STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.

TO: Mr. Rich Van Iderstine -- U.S. Department of Transporation, NHTSA

COPYEE: Daniel Carboni, Sr. V.P. (Ignition and Brake Products) David Blasco -- (Product Test Lab)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH B. GORDON (A40; STD. 108; VSA (a)(2)(A))

TEXT: EIS has been approached as to the possibility of our manufacturing a product which provides an intermittently blinking brake light function. Before we actually consider such a project however, we need to learn if there are any existing prohibitions or problems which would disqualify this device from being introduced to the marketplace.

Intended for use in passenger vehicles, the product under consideration is an addition to the existing rear brake light system which causes the brake lights to flash intermittently when pressure to the brake pedal is applied. While this mechanism would provide an added measure of visibility to alert traffic behind a braking vehicle, our concerns are whether such a device would be confused with hazard warning lights or if there are other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture.

EIS would very much appreciate any advice or information NHTSA can provide us with on this proposed braking product at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht92-9.6

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/30/92 from David Klopp to Mary Versailles (OCC 6926)

TEXT:

This responds to your fax of January 30, 1992 to Mary Versailles of my staff asking whether the anchorage strength test in Standard No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, requires simultaneous testing of seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame of a seat having multiple seating positions.

Under the current requirements of S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. The requirement applicable to vehicles with seat-mounted safety belt anchorages, S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210, has been changed, effective September 1, 1992. For a vehicle manufactured on or after that date, seat-mounted anchorages will be tested simultaneously by loading all anchorages common to the same occupant seat.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.60

DATE: January 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/91 from Tony Llama to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6784)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1991, with respect to the permissibility of temporarily importing a Fiat from Brazil that is not in conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The purpose of the importation is to design and build an air conditioning system for the car. Upon completion of this work, the Fiat will be exported.

You have enclosed a copy of my letter of August 2, 1990, granting permission for the importation of a van manufactured in the Soviet Union for which you had been asked to design an air conditioning system. In that letter, I informed you that it would be appropriate for you to enter the van pursuant to 49 CFR section 591.5(j), under the declaration that the vehicle is being imported solely for the purpose of research, investigations, and studies or demonstrations. Under the circumstances outlined in your letter, we believe that it would be appropriate for you to enter the Brazilian Fiat as well under section 591.5(j).

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht92-9.61

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: B.J. Forney

TO: Diane K. Steed -- Traffic Sft. Adm.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to B.J. Forney (A34; VSA 102)

TEXT:

I am seeking a written statement from your dept. as to the legality of on the road operation of such a system described in the enclosed brochure. (back page.)

In 1982 I spent $4,500 with Inv. Mkt in Pitts, PA. with only paper work to show for it.

If this system is not or would not be allowed on the roads, an attempt to recover my fee is anticipated.

This would help me in my future efforts to market this system with any trucking industry.

Return postage cost would be accepted.

Thank you for your opinions.

Attachment (letter)

March 27, 1990

Mr. B.J. Forney R 6, 61 Harrison, AZ 72601

Dear Mr. Forney:

Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 1990, relative to an Automotive Power Drive. Before submitting this matter to our appropriate management people for determination of their interest, I would like to propose the following:

(1) Any disclosure of information by you to representatives of Westinghouse is to be on a non-confidential basis and such information is received by Westinghouse with no obligation whatsoever.

(2) You will rely solely on your patent rights with respect to compensation for any information so disclosed.

If the foregoing understanding is acceptable to you, please so indicate by executing and returning the acceptance provided on the extra copy of this letter.

We appreciate your thinking of Westinghouse in connection with your invention.

Very truly yours,

L.M. Laffoon Mgr., Administrative Services Westinghouse Electric Corporation Law Department - Intellectual Property

Attachment (brochure)

Forney Air, NAT-2929 (Text and graphics omitted)