ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache

ID: 1984-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Services Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

By way of background information, this agency does not grant approvals of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum and maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).

As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than two tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.

We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and the low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.

Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:

attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....

Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-ups should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.

As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new design which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.

Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983

Mr. William Smith National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th St., S.W. Room 5320 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements relating to retraction force and lock-up distance on Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism). This particular device is activated by the vehicle door; with the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

The purpose of measuring retraction force is to insure that two (2) separate requirements are met.

1. Retraction force is high enough to sufficiently retract the webbing to its normal stowed position (Minimum Requirement).

2. Retraction force is not so high as to cause discomfort to the user (Maximum Requirement).

Since the referenced tension reducer is activated solely by door position, and the user has no manual control of the tension reducer operation, a question is raised pertaining to retraction force requirements.

We feel that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. That is; High Tension Mode -minimum retraction force requirements and Low Tension Mode - maximum retraction force requirement.

However, this raises another question on FMVSS 209 minimum requirements for retractor force for Type 2 Assemblies (0.2 lbs.). In FMVSS #208 proposed requirements for Comfort and Convenience, slack is allowed to be introduced in the webbing (S7.4.2.) provided that it is cancelled when the adjacent door is opened. This appears to be in contradiction of the 0.2 lbs. retraction force requirement of FMVSS 209 when utilizing a tension reducer type of retractor. Therefore, it seems, that since the tension reducer type of retractor is designed strictly for comfort, and not to induce slack, only 50% loss in retraction effort requirement after cycling should be pertinent.

The purpose of retractor cycling is to determine if the retractor will perform satisfactorily during repeated use and that spring tension does not change significantly as well as its ability to lock-up.

Since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, we feel that only cycling tests without lock-ups need be performed in accordance with FMVSS #209.

The low tension mode is the portion of the retractor that will perform during impact conditions and therefore should require standard cycling with lock-ups.

Therefore, we feel an interpretation of the adequacy of the minimum retraction force requirement pertaining to Comfort and Convenience type mechanisms is necessary. Also do both tension modes have to satisfy the Retractor Performance requirement of FMVSS #209.

We would appreciate your review of the above comments and your interpretation of same.

Very truly yours,

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President FP/na

ID: 1984-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/84 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. -- Seiroku Miyauchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Seiroku Miyauchi Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 1-2, Marunouchi, 2-Chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100 Japan

This responds to your letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong asking several questions about Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

Your first question concerned the requirements of Weathering Test No. 16 of American National Standard Institute Z-26. The version of ANSI Z-26 currently incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 is ANSI Z-26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1a, July 3, 1980, rather than ANSI Z-26.1-1977 as cited in your letter. Your question has to do with the language of section 5.16.3 of ANSI Z-26, which states that after the weathering test, "the decrease in regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimen shall not exceed 5 percent." You ask whether the permissible decrease is an absolute 5 percentage points (defined as A-B, where A is the luminous transmittance before the test and B is the luminous transmittance after the test) or is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A). The permissible decrease is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A), or stated another way, the irradiated specimen must have 95 percent of its original transmittance after the test.

You also asked if Weathering Test No. 16 applies to AS-7 glazing materials. As required by Table 1 of ANSI Z-26, the weathering test does apply to AS-7 glazing materials.

Finally, you asked which DOT number, yours or the resin maker's, should be applied to a motorcycle windshield you make with an injection machine from polycarbonate resin pellets. Your DOT number must be used, since you fabricate the actual item of glazing material that will be placed in a vehicle.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dec. 26, 1983

Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Sw. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Mr. F. Armstrong :

This is a letter in response to your letter of December 8, 1983. We appreciate your kind cooperation very much. This time, we would like to inquire you the following questions.

(1) Concerning the weathering test (test No.16 of ANS Z26.1-1977) It describes that the decrease in luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimens shall not exceed 5%. Would you tell me the meaning cf the above mentioned decrease ? It can be defined as either way ... (A-B)/A or (A-B) A : the luminous transmittance before test B : the luminous transmittance after test We think (A-B) is correct. Because if (A-B)/A is correct, the allowable decrease (A-B) is relatively smaller in proportion to the smaller A value. And in addition, is the above criteria applied to AS-7 grade, which is defined at the level not requisite for driving visibility?

(2) Concerning the marking of safety glazing materials. We purchase the polycarbonate resin pellets from resin makers, and mold windscreens for motorcycles with injection machine. In this connection, which DOT number should we mark the resin maker's number or our number ?

Your prompt answer will be much appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

( Seiroku Miyauchi ) Technical Manager Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.

SM / yy

ID: 1984-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stapleton Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ben Barbie Stapleton Public Schools P.O. Box 125 Stapleton, Nebraska 69163

Dear Mr. Barbie:

This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.

The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1, 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proto-Systems Inc. -- Barry M. Davis, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect to the "Headlight Kit" which you manufacture as "an aftermarket add on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro." You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase "meets Federal safety standards" on your packaging.

We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet, and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former; when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer; however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.

Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required, but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).

This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new car dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase "meets Federal safety standards" is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as "Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions." That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.

I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, I enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am a manufacturer of aftermarket automotive accessories. We are in the process of developing a product which may or may not involve coverage under a safety standard in CFR title 49. I have received conflicting opinions about wheater the product is covered and finallly was referred to you by Steve Oesch of your office.

The product we are going to produce called the "Headlight Kit" will be sold as an after maket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Carmo. It will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by car dealers as a new car option.

Briefly, the device operates by means of a motorized, opaque panel which covers the existing stationary headlamps. When the normal healight switch is operated the panels covering both sets of headlamps drops down leaving the beams unconstructed.

It was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Iderstien and Mr. Medlin, safety standard engineers in the office of vehicle safety standards, division of crash avoidance, that our product was covered under Code of Federal Regulations title 49 part 566 section 571.112 concerning headlamp concealment devices, and SAE standard J579c concerning beam pattern requirements for sealed beam headlamp.

Our Headling Kit has been designed to comply fully with all provisions of the standards.

This is of particular importance to us because our competitors' products do not comply. It is our intention to represent this product as being in full compliance with Federal safety standards. We are currently printing promotional and packaging material and recently need your response to the following:

1. Does this prouct require certification under 571.112?

2. If certification is required, what is the procedure for allowing us to include this certification on our packaging and promotional materials?

3. If certification is not required, may we still include on our package:

a. The symbol - "DOT" b. The phrase - "Meets federal safety standards"

Please call me with any question. Our production schedules have already been made. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Barry M. Davis Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc. BMD/dmj

ID: 1984-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Comfort-Tour Cycle Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Roberson Comfort-Tour Cycle Products 8724 116th Avenue, N. E. Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Roberson:

This responds to your letter of November 29, 1983, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, which was forwarded to this office for reply, concerning the legal requirements regulating the manufacture of motorcycle windshields. You requested information on how you as a manufacturer may obtain certification of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (FMVSS No. 205), Glazing Materials. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). These requirements include specifications for performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles and motorcycles, such as minimum levels of light transmittance and abrasion resistance. Copies of FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 have been enclosed in the letter sent to you by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance dated January l0, 1984.

You should be aware that the NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your windshields comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination.

There are other regulations and standards affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment of which you should be aware. For instance, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act a copy of which is enclosed, requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. In addition, Part 556 requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of the agency's regulations. You should refer to the Act and its implementing regulations in order to understand the extent of your responsibilities as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1984-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States -- Rick Van Drie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Rick van Drie Junior International Trade Advisor The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States 303 E. Wacker, Suite 412 Chicago, IL 60601

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you wish to know whether car mats and car seat covers sold not to car manufacturers, but to retailers and wholesalers must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. The mats and seat covers are required to comply with those requirements only if they will be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop. However, there are possible product liability consequences whioc could result if the mats and seat covers do not meet the flammability requirements and burn in a vehicle under circumstances where complying mats and seat covers would not have burned.

Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 specifies the components of a vehicle which must meet the flammability requirements of section S4.3. Included among the components listed in S4.1 are seat cushions, seat backs, head restraints, and floor coverings. These components would cover items like seat covers and floor mats. Hence, any seat covers or mats installed as original equipment in new vehicles would have to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. However, section S3 of the standard specifies that the standard applies to new vehicles and not to individual components. The effect of section S3 is that the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 are not directly applicable to the individual components like seat covers and floor mats that are sold as items of aftermarket equipment.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Act:; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,..." This agency would interpret the installation of seat covers and car mats which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 in a vehicle as rendering inoperative an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard (Standard No. 302), and therefore that installation would violate section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a potential civil penalty of $1000 for each violation of section 108.

While this language precludes manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair shops from installing seat covers or floor mats which do not comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a motor vehicle, it does not prohibit consumers from installing such items in their vehicles. Hence, if the manufacturer of noncomplying seat covers and floor mats intends that they only be installed by purchasers, no violation of Federal law or regulation would be involved.

However, if the seat covers or floor mats were to catch fire in a situation where a seat cover or floor mat complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, there would be possible liability consequences under State and common law. You may wish to consult a private attorney for further advice in this regard.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. RvD/jh/94 January 20, 1984

Mr. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council National Highway Safety Administration 4007th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

In reference to our telephone conversation of January 20 concerning car mats and car seatcovers, we hereby ask for your opinion regarding regulations, especially Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302, on these products.

If these products are not sold to the car manufacturers but to retailers and wholesalers, so to the aftermarket, has the manufacturer in those cases still to comply with these regulations?

Awaiting an early reply on this matter, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Rick van Drie Junior International Trade Advisor

ID: 1984-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: EF Technology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robort Sprafka EF Technology 1405 North U.S. 27 St. Johns, MI 48879-0189

Dear Mr. Sprafka:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a school bus that has a natural gas fuel system as original equipment. As discussed below, Standard No. 301 does not apply to a natural gas fuel system.

Standard No. 301 sets fuel system integrity requirements for certain vehicle types, including school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. The standard, however, only applies to those vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32oF. Since natural gas does not have a boiling point above 32oF, the standard would not apply.

Although there are no safety standards applicable to natural gas fuel systems, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects in their motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 151, et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed, provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

I am also enclosing, for your information, an agency letter discussing the legal responsibilities of persons who converted gasoline fuel systems to use propane and other gas.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1984-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: COSCO -- Don Gerken, Research and Development

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Gerken Senior Product Engineer Research and Development COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus, Indiana 47201

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S 571.213). Specifically you noted that your company would like to begin producing a child restraint system with a new shield design. The new shield would be substantially smaller than the shield your company currently uses. You noted that this type of shield is already being sold by other companies, and that in your restraint, the harness system, but not the shelf-like shield, would restrain the child's forward movement. A system with that characteristic would not comply with Standard No. 213.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that no fixed or movable surface shall be in front of the child, except surfaces which restrain the child. Since your proposed new shield does not restrain the child, it is expressly prohibited from being mounted on the child restraint.

Even assuming that the proposed new shield did act to restrain the child, there is still a question of whether the shield would comply with section S5.2.2.1(c), since your drawing does not indicate which portions of the shield would restrain a child's torso and thus would need to comply with the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement.

At this time, the Enforcement Division of this agency has several investigations pending concerning potential violations of the standard by firms using shields along the lines of the shield you propose. These investigations focus primarily on whether such shields satisfy the 2-inch radius of curvature requirement of section S5.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information or have further questions on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

September 27, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

My present project is to reduce cost of our Child Restraints and, at the same time, comply with the Standards.

We make a shield, illustrated as Design "A" attached, that is costly and we cannot produce it in-house. The shape illustrated as Design "B" lends itself to injection molding that we could do in-house. If this shape were used in such a way that it was spring loaded upward and moving it down in front of a child would also place a harness system on the child, would this design violate the Standards, assuming it met all the test criteria?

In effect, the harness system would restrain the child's forward movement -- not the shelf-like shield.

This is not something new. The concept now is being sold; but before pursuing this concept further ourselves, we would like assurance that the concept will comply.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken

Senior Product Engineer Research and Development

rm

Encl.

INSERT GRAPH

ID: 1984-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 21, 1984 Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your further letter of December 15, 1983, regarding your lighting device, asking me to reconsider my views of November 22 that it offered the potential for impairment of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

To recap, your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lamps to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, it operates by lights (red? amber?) spreading from the center of the red translucent panel outward, in either or both directions. I concluded that the novelty of the device offered a great potential for confusion; in the stop mode, a following driver will see the steady red light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, and also the dynamic lights spreading out from the center of the red panel. You have indicated that modification of the flash rate will not be a problem, and were the light spread activation perceptually almost simultaneous with that of the stop lamp, the possibility of impairment would diminish.

I also commented that the same dynamic light spread is seen but meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously (your system's hazard warning mode). Since all lamps are flashing, we believe that the potential for impairment is much less in this instance.

We note that you have added two further functions since last writing us about your device: displays of words in the hazard mode indicating whether road service or police aid is needed. This is an interesting concept and we regard it as a supplement to the hazard signal which would not impair its effectiveness.

In the final analysis, aftermarket equipment such as you propose to offer, which is not itself incorporated into the Federal lighting standard, is subject to the "approval" or "disapproval" of the various jurisdictions in which motor vehicles equipped with it are being operated. It is a mistaken impression that the Federal Government "approves" or "disapproves" aftermarket equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act gives us no authority to "approve" or "disapprove." We can and do, however, point out potential problems of a safety nature that may arise from use of a device that is not covered by a safety standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LJM Associates, Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91304 (213) 347-2695

December 15, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel, Frank Berndt, Vincent Taylor

Dear Sir:

This letter is in response to your response letter dated November 22nd and my subsequent phone conversation to Mr. Taylor. Both sets of communications have indicated a lack of approval but no legal disapproval of my product. The purpose of this letter is to achieve approval from your department.

In response to the letter or Mr. Berndt, I do not believe that there is any potential confusion between my "emergency flasher" indication and "brake" indication since they are presently totally different in current usage. One of these is normally used for a stopped vehicle while the other is used to indicate that a vehicle is stopping. In either case the response of the other driver is to stay clear of the indicating vehicle, thus the desired response is in all cases preserved. If this still concerns you and this is the only obstacle to approval then the emergency response can be changed to a flashing CAUTION indication.

In response to my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor, your concern was solely related to the "brake" indication in that the moving arrows might cause a confusion to other drivers. I strongly disagree with this opinion as my road tests confirm. The movement of the arrows cause the operator of other vehicles to be able to respond at least as quickly as with just the normal brake indications. I do expect that an improvement does exist because the physiology of the human mind is such that a driver can respond to movement very quickly due to origins of the human species. The normal brake indication depends upon this by a causing an intensity transition, but this can be ineffective due to the wide range of brightnesses of brake lights found on automobiles today which can cause a confusion if the operator is distracted during night-time operation. You stated that your objections would not exist if the arrows were not moving. I agreed that a very slow movement would be ineffective and distracting. The difference between our positions is just the speed of movement, infinity being your position, my position being approximately 3/4 second to complete the arrow or approximately the same speed of a blinker I think further consideration would show that my proposal is in no way detrimental and may actually be a safety feature (the speed may be further increased if it will allow me to obtain an approval).

Further functions have been added to reflect a need of at least my local police department. These needs are that emergency flashers only indicate a problem but not the type of attention needed. Thus I have added two indications for this identification:

BREAKDOWN ROAD SERVICE REQUEST

POLICE HELP POLICE AID REQUEST

In conclusion, it appears that active disapproval is not forthcoming from your department but I still would appreciate obtaining at least a passive approval. Your comments would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell