ID: nht95-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tom Byrne (Redbook (2); Std. 106)

TEXT: Goodridge (UK) Ltd. has been awarded approval/certification for its Brakelines by the TUV Manheim, Germany. The test procedures and requirements were those of FMVSS 106. We are therefore now able to offer Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines that are leg al for Street and Highway use in Europe and we believe the United States. We have completed the necessary paperwork and have filed for a USA DOT Manufacturers number.

In order to avoid any possible confusion or irregularity, can you please confirm: * an independent laboratory certification that the line meets the requirements of FMVSS 106 is valid for the United States. * that such a brakeline can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper (for example, where pipe thread has been used). * are there any special marking requirements for the United States? We are required to tag with our manufacturers nam e, type of assembly and date of manufacture.

I am submitting to you a copy of our TUV Certificate and an English translation. This is confidential material and I ask that you please give it confidential treatment. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your timely res ponse. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 452-1664.

ID: aiam4990

Dear Mr. Phillips: This responds to your letter to this office date March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an 'approved equivalent test device' for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested. Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that 'a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided' for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a 'dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device.' The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a '95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy.' We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has 'an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure.' In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term 'approved representation of a human articulated neck structure.' The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968. You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572. We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length. I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5255

"Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 1983-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 20, 1983

FROM: F. MICHAEL PETLER -- HEAD, ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SUZUKI

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS NO. 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-6-83, TO F. MICHAEL PETLER, FROM FRANK BERNDT, NOA-30

TEXT: We are in urgent need of your confirmation of our interpretation of the seat belt assembly anchorage requirements for the rear seat.

Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 states:

"Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, and for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by @ 571.208 in vehicles other than passenger cars."

In your agency's November 2, 1981 denial of Toyo Kogyo U.S.A.'s petition for rulemaking (46 F.R. 54391-54392) the following statement appears:

"The standard requires all passenger cars, lightweight trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles to be equipped with three-point anchorages for Type 2 belts (combination lap and shoulder belts) at each forward facing outboard designated seating position. Two-point anchorages for Type 1 belts (lap belts) are required at all other designated seating positions (center front and all rear positions)."

We interpret this standard to require that only Type 1 seat belt assembly anchorages must be installed for each seating position of a rear seat, such as in the case of a passenger car. We would appreciate a prompt reply as to whether we are correct in our interpretation of this standard.

ID: nht87-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 21, 1987

FROM: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: We have a unique problem with our articulated trolley coach which we believe you may be able to help us solve.

The problem we are experiencing concerns passengers opening the rear emergency window and pulling the ropes, causing the poles to dewire. This could cause serious injury to the passenger doing this as well as to others. It is also an interruption of se rvice, as the driver must stop the bus and put the poles back on the wire. It is our belief that in the interest of safety the rear emergency window should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window. This task can be done quite simply by o ur Body Shop.

As we understand FMVSS 217, we could accomplish this task. We inquired of the manufacturer of the trolley about this problem and enclose copies of their letters on this topic. Their letters also include information on the available emergency windows an d hatches on this bus. These 46 buses are 60 ft. long, three-axle articulated buses which are electrically powered from overhead wires.

We would like to receive from you clarification on FMVSS 217 and a formal opinion regarding our proposed action.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-3.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 1, 1990

FROM: Rickey Bass -- Q.C. Manager, Terminal Service Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re High mounted stop lamp and identification lamp combination.

ATTACHMT: Attached to design drawing of lamp (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-24-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Bass (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Terminal Service Company would like to have your office give us a written interpretation of the current laws, to see if they would prohibit the use of a combination stop and identification lamp. The combination lamp in question would be used on Departme nt of Transportation certified cargo tank motor vehicles.

We realize that FMVSS 108 prohibits combining other clearance lamps with any tail or identification lamp. But, it also says that two or more lamps or reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each item and associated equipment are met. FMVSS 108 also states the manufacturer is to determine if the function of the equipment is impaired.

Our stop and identification lamp would consist of three (3) separate single compartments, each having its own lens and dual filament bulb, located at the specified location for the identification lamp. A design drawing is enclosed for the purpose of ill ustration.

Terminal Service Company feels that with this design, the function of the identification light, at the rear of the cargo tank will be intact, although when the brake light is illuminated, the identification light will be brighter.

Your assistance would be appreciated.

ID: nht88-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: AL CUNNINGHAM -- CHIEF ENGINEER WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL D.O.T.

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF SAE DEFINITIONS AS THEY APPLY TO FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO AL CUNNINGHAM, CHIEF ENGINEER, WESTBAR CORPORATION, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We are writing your office requesting official clarification of definitions referred to in SAE J588e as it applies to FMVSS 108. The definition in question is, 2.2 "Multiple Compartment Lamp" and the term used in 3.1 "Single Compartment Lamp".

With this request, we are furnishing two lamps as examples, one identified as 3504 exp. and the second as 3504. The first sample (3504 exp.) has a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of hou sing. This lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp. Would the sample submitted as described above be defined as a single compartment lamp?

The second sample has a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one #57 bulb and one #1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, one on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class "A" tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class "A" reflex side and rear. Would the sample, as submitted and described, be defined as single compartment la mp?

Thank you for reviewing our requests. We look forward to receiving your interpretation of these definitions as they apply to our questions and samples furnished.

Enclosures - 2 samples

ID: 77-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/77

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking whether the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, extend to contactable surfaces 30 inches forward of the seating reference point of the front passenger seat behind the driver.

The head protection zone requirements are outlined in S5.3.1.1 of the standard. This section requires that the zone extend 30 inches forward of the seating reference point. The fact that the requirement may extend the head protection zone into the driver occupant space and thus involve contactable surfaces does not diminish the applicability of the requirements to contactable surfaces within that space. Contactable surfaces within that 30-inch zone, as shown on your sketch, must meet the requriements of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Wayne Corporation

April 1, 1977

Frank R. Berndt -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Apart from the 3.00 dimension, do the requirements of sections S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3 apply to surfaces located in "Zone A" shown on the enclosed sketch?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Kurre -- Director of Engineering

Enclosure

[Graphics omitted]

ID: nht81-2.2

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sutphen Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Robert L. Poe General Manager Sutphen Corporation 7000 Columbus-Marysville Road P.O. Amlin, Ohio 43002

Dear Mr. Poe

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 19, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Submittal of Vehicle 407th Street, S.W. Identification Number (VIN) Washington, D.C. 20590 Application Breakdown

Attention: Vin Coordinator Gentlemen:

Please find, enclosed, a copy of the Sutphen Corporation forms which will be utilized in assigning VIN numbers to apparatus manufactured after February 1, 1981.

It is assumed that submittal of these tabulations are satisfactory to fulfill our requirements as applicable to FMVSS 115 (amended).

If further information is needed, please contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

ROBERT L. POE General Manager

rs enc.

ID: nht78-3.4

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Cars & Concepts, Inc.

February 16, 1978

Mr. Oats -- Office of Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Oats:

Regarding your conversations with Ed Myjack of my office, it is his understanding that the Department of Transportation markings on glass need not be visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle (providing the original manufacturer's marking do remain on the glass).

As we provide vinyl top design and installations on some OEM vehicles, some of the designs may cover these markings on the quarter glass and/or backlights.

Since we provide these type of installations to the OEM, they require written proof that such modifications are within the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. -- Director of Design

cc: D. Draper; E. Myjack