ID: nht73-1.7

DATE: 09/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Technical Research Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 24, 1973, asking for an interpretation of several aspects of Standard No. 105a.

You have asked the following questions

"1. Paragraph S.5.1.2. 'Partial failure.'

It is required that '. . . the remaining portion(s) of the service brake system shall continue to operate . . .' What is the exact meaning of 'continue to operate'? Does it mean that the remaining portion of the brake system must be permanently fed or does it mean that it is required to have temporary braking with the operative portion reserve capability? In this latter case, how many brake applications are required?"

"Continue to operate" means that the portion of the brake system that has not failed continues to operate indefinitely, i.e., to the point that it wears out or until a second failure occurs in the brake system. It requires a permanent feed and does not depend upon the reserve capability of operative portion of system.

"2. Paragraph S.5.1.3.3 'Brake power units':

What exactly constitutes the power source? On the Citroen D and S models, the front brake circuit is fed by the pressure prevailing in the rear suspension. The brake accumulator and the rear suspension are fed from the high pressure source (which includes an HP pump, a pressure regulator and a main accumulator) . . . What is meant by 'inoperative brake power unit'? Does that mean that the high pressure pump only is inoperative or also the other components of the power source (main accumulator and regulator)?. . . What is meant by 'when the inoperative unit is depleted of all reserve capability' (paragraph S.5.1.3.3.(ii))? Are we correct in assuming that it means that only the main accumulator is depleted of reserve capability? (It is obvious that if one considers that not only the main accumulator, but also the brake accumulator and the rear suspension are depleted, no braking is possible)."

The power source consists of pumps, accumulators and/or back up systems such as a separate electric or hydraulic pumps, etc. A primary power source would be the pump, while the accumulators would constitute a secondary source and would be the portions used in optional test. A high pressure source would include the pump, regulator and, in Citroen's case, the main accumulator.

"Inoperative brake power unit" could mean that the (1) main pump is out, but the accumulators are functioning, (2) the main pump is operating, but only one brake accumulator is operating, (3) the pump and brake accumulator are operating, but the suspension accumulator is out, (4) the pump or accumulator is out, and the system is operating on reserve or backup pump. This list is meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.

"When the inoperative unit is depleted of all reserve capability" means that one of the units (pump, accumulator, etc.) is completely non-functional, e.g., the pump has failed, the accumulator has failed, the check valve has failed, etc.

"3. Paragraph S.7.10.2 'Optional procedures'

We believe that subparagraph 'b' (vehicles with brake power unit) applies to our vehicles.

The test procedure mentioned in paragraph S.7.10.2(a) cannot be applied to our vehicles since, if the system is depleted of 'any residual brake power reserve capability', it is obvious that no braking is possible. We believe that the power source only should be depleted of any residual reserve (HP pump inoperative, main accumulator depleted), but not the entire brake system. Since, by definition, a 'brake power unit' is a unit where the operator action consists 'only of modulating the energy application level,' but not of supplying energy to the system, it is obvious that no braking is possible if all internal residual energy left in the brake system is depleted (since, in this case, there would be no energy available for braking from either the HP source, the driver or the system).

S7.10.2(b) does apply to Citroen. Your comments on S7.10.2(a) are correct.

Yours truly,

July 24, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

In relation to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a "Hydraulic Brake System", as published in the Federal Register vol. 38 No. 96 of May 18, 1973, we would like clarification of the following points.

1. Paragraph S.5.1.2 "Partial failure."

It is required that ". . . the remaining portion(s) of the service brake system shall continue to operate . . ." What is the exact meaning of "continue to operate"? Does it mean that the remaining portion of the brake system must be permanently fed or does it mean that it is required to have temporary braking with the operative portion reserve capability? In this latter case, how many brake applications are required?

2. Paragraph S.5.1.3.3 "Brake power units":

- What exactly constitutes the power source? On the Citroen D and S models, the front brake circuit is fed by a brake accumulator while the rear brake circuit is fed by the pressure prevailing in the rear suspension. The brake accumulator and the rear suspension are fed from the high pressure source (which includes an HP pump, a pressure regulator and a main accumulator). (see enclosed sketches)

We understand that the high pressure source is constituted by the HP pump, the pressure regulator and the main accumulator only. Are we correct?

- What is it meant by "inoperative brake power unit"? Does that mean that the high pressure pump only is inoperative or also the other components of the power source (main accumulator and regulator)?

We believe it should be considered that several failures cannot simultaneously happen to the same system. (as it is considered in equivalent European regulations).

- What is it meant by "when the inoperative unit is depleted of all reserve capability" (paragraph S.5.1.3.3.(ii))? Are we correct in assuming that it means that only the main accumulator is depleted of reserve capability? (It is obvious that if one considers that not only the main accumulator, but also the brake accumulator and the rear suspension are depleted, no braking is possible).

3. Paragraph S.7.10.2 "Optional procedures"

We believe that subparagraph "b" (vehicles with brake power unit) applies to our vehicles.

The test procedure mentioned in paragraph S.7.10.2(a) cannot be applied to our vehicles since, if the system is depleted of "any residual brake power reserve capability", it is obvious that no braking is possible. We believe that the power source only should be depleted of any residual reserve (HP pump inoperative, main accumulator depleted), but not the entire brake system. Since, by definition, a "brake power unit" is a unit where the operator action consists "only of modulating the energy application level," but not of supplying energy to the system, it is obvious that no braking is possible if all internal residual energy left in the brake system is depleted (since, in this case, there would be no energy available for braking from either the HP source, the driver or the system.)

We remain, of course, at your disposal should you need more information on the operation of our braking system, and, awaiting your answer, we are,

Very truly yours,

By Bernard Belier -- U.S. Resident Engineer for CITROEN S.A.

Enclosures: 1 print "Citroen SM braking"; 1 sketch "Citroen high pressure source"; 1 sketch "Citroen brake system"; 1 sketch "Suspension"; 1 plate No. 21 "Citroen brake accumulator"

ID: nht87-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/87

FROM: PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT -- DIRECTOR, BIOMASS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TO: GEORGE PARKER -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33(2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3106

TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker:

This letter is in regard to importation of "Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (P.L. 89-563 Sects. 108 and 114, 19 C.F.R. 12.80) and related to DOT Form HS 7, Item 7.

The vehicles involved in this request for importation would be classified (under Item 7) as being imported solely for the purpose of test and experiment. The purpose of this letter is to explain the objectives of our research program and the need for th is undertaking.

BACKGROUND

Brazil has in the order of 1.3 million vehicles on the road which are fueled by "neat" ethanol, which is also referred to as hydrous ethanol. The hydrous azeotropic product of ethanol distillation has to be dehydrated to the anhydrous form to be involve d in blending operations with gasoline in this country. The hydrous ethanol fuel for the Brazilian vehicles has a typical analysis of 95% ethanol and 5% water. Today the vast majority of the new over the road passenger vehicles and light trucks in Braz il are ethanol dedicated designs. The use of ethanol as the only fuel was inaugerated about ten years ago, and prompted by the lack of natural petroleum reserves in Brazil. The production of significant numbers of over the road passenger vehicles was in augerated in the early part of this decade, and the production rate has been increasing ever since. About 90% of Ford Brazil's over the road passenger car production models are ethanol fueled vehicles.

During this period (the decade of the 1980's) little, if anything has been done to evaluate these vehicles in the U.S. in terms of performance, economics, exhaust gas composition, emission controls, fuel economy-ambient problems, durability, the material s of construction to accomodate the ethanol fuel, maintenance, power trained design, fuel composition (there are no denaturants used in Brazil), cold weather starting, hot weather Reed vapor pressure problems, etc.

To our knowledge there has been practically no importation of these over the road ethanol vehicles primarily because of a lack of any comprehensive testing programs, and the lack of import approval by the EPA and the DOT. Also the provisions for either re-exporting the vehicles or destroying the vehicles after one year was an obvious deterrent. It is also significant that in the recent "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effective Study" which was prepared by the National Advisory Panel on Cost Effectiveness of Fuel E thanol Production, published in November of 1987, the accompanying bibliography cited ten pages of references (125) and only one reference was a reference to Brazilian technology in ethanol vehicles. This one reference had to do with "Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution Related Aspects. SAE Technical Paper 850390, February 1985." This University has been involved in research on the production economics of ethanol and utilization throughout this decade. In 1983 we were provided with a Ford-Brazilian designed prototype tractor (which was a modified 4600 design), one of seven in the world, which was ethanol fueled. We tested the unit under field operating conditions for approximately 20 months. The unit was considered a "dedicated" ethanol design and brought into this country by Ford Tractor operations at Troy, Michigan. The unit was equipped with a number of design features which enabled it to perform effectively in cold weather conditions. The tractor was placed on a research f arm operated by Pioneer Hi-Bred International near Iowa City and was used for farm tasks ranging from a feedlot operation through forage operation and silo filling.

The unit was heavily instrumented and a large body of information collected involving cold and hot weather operating characteristics, and its general economy of operation was compared to conventional diesel fueled units that were performing similar tasks . Because of the prototype nature of the test unit, data was not published as Ford Tractor Operations was considering the potential sale of the design in this country.

The unit did go into production in Brazil and eight production prototypes are in an evaluation program by the Illinois DOT.

CURRENT SITUATION

The units we wish to import will be either the F-100 Ford pickup (upon which you already have specifications) or the F-1000, which is about 3.6 liters and somewhat comparable to the Ford "Ranger" produced in this country. It should be pointed out tha t Ford Brazil has, as of the first of July merged with Volkswagen in Brazil. They have formed a company named "Auto-Latino". The company does produce some gasoline fueled vehicles that are imported into this country under the name of the Volkswagon Fox . The manager of Volkswagen altered the executive responsibilities of several of the people with whom we had maintained liaison at Ford Brazil. It should also be pointed out that we made our original inquiries to Ford Brazil over two years ago regardin g the importation of their over the road vehicles and obtained the necessary clearances that we needed from that end but we did not follow through on our programming of a test project because of lack of funds. The following is the program that we will m anage in the testing of the three vehicles we request approval to import.

OBJECTIVES

The overall efficiency of the dedicated ethanol fueled vehicles has been continually improving -- to a point where a 3 to 4% increase in efficiency would balance out the difference in BTU values of gasoline versus ethanol. (Gasoline being approximately 110,000 BTU and ethanol being approximately 85,000 BTU). * The dedicated ethanol spark injection engine had traditionally been more fuel efficient than its gasoline counterpart.

* per U.S. Gallon

The objective of this test is three-fold:

1. To determine the efficiency of the Brazilian units and what improvements might be made by the use of fuel injection, and alternate fuel composition.

2. To determine the operational economics of the Brazilian vehicles as compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles, using current gasoline prices and current ethanol production costs.

3. Evaluate the ambient effects (particularly cold weather) on vehicle operation (particularly engine starting) and classify them as to degrees of difficulty and outline corrective measures.

4. Evaluate alternate fuel compositions (i.e. use of detergents as a denaturant).

5. Evaluate emissions and determine the need (if any) for control procedures.

6. Evaluate the procedures for fuel handling and establishing compliance with BATF.

7. Evaluate potential customer acceptance.

8. Set a time frame (if possible) for on going research or commercial development.

TEST PROCEDURES

The units would be tested in an agricultural environment for a number of reasons, among which is to minimize the problems of fuel handling. Typical farmers today will have at least two or possibly three fuels in storage (gasoline, diesel and LPG). The arrangement would eliminate the need for service station type distribution in the area.

1. Data Loging. Each research vehicle would be equipped with a Omnidata data loger which would have a 16 channel input with a 64,000 character storage and would be capable of monotoring the performance of the vehicle for a 20 hour period which would no rmally encompass two weeks of anticipated activity. Although not all of the specific inputs have been defined those that would be monitoroed include: RPM of the crank shaft (tachometer), RPM of the output shaft from the transmission, ground speed of the vehicle, fuel consumption rate, coolant temperature, outdoor ambient, exhaust manifold temperature, intake manifold temperature, fuel temperature, real time and combustion air intake temperature (for carbonated units). These readings would be sampled an d loged every 10 - 20 seconds.

The data loger and the associated sensory equipment would be installed by the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll branch of the Des Moines Area Community College (DEMAC). Every one or two weeks (depending on usage patterns) the data logers woul d be off loaded into a 1500 Zenith portable computer which is compatible to the data loger. This would be done at the Automotive and Agricultural Engineering Vocational Center at the Audubon Community High School in Audubon. The data from the Zenith un it would then be transfered to an IBM PC/AT at the Audubon Industrial Development Corporation for evaluation.

2. Fuel Analysis and Formulations. Preliminary arrangements have been made with a fuel alcohol plant, ADCII * at Hamburg, Iowa. This arrangement has been tentatively sanctioned by the BATF's regional office in Chicago. The hydrous ethanol fuel from t he ADCII would be sold to an ethonal fuels research company in the Audubon area which would have a permit from the BATF to do experimental research and evaluations of ethanol fuels. This would include analysis of denaturants that are inherent in the fue l prior to the cyclohexane or molecular sieve dehydration of the ethanol to the anhydrous form (which is the normal product sold by the Hamburg facility), detergents and other additives that would be incorporated in the fuel, which would then be evaluate d by the BATF to determine if these components would constitute a legal denaturant.

* or ADC-II

An analysis of performance of the U.S. fuel would be compared against the performances of the Brazilian fuel composition. To the extent possible an attempt would be made to emulate the conditions and analysis of the Brazilian produced hydrous ethanol fu el.

3. Maintenance Analysis. Periodically the units would be returned to the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll Branch of DEMAC. Specialized personnel teaching courses in automotive technology will compare maintenance requirements with those tha t have been experienced by the Brazilian producers of the units.

Particular attention would be given to the cold weather operating conditions to determine if the lower temperatures being experienced in Iowa would have any unusual effect upon normal engine performance.

At the time the vehicles are acquired the Brazilian Manufacturer will recommend a package of spare parts that will be imported with the vehicles.

4. Emissions Testing. Equipment is being secured to enable emissions testing. This equipment was designed for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. It is not known if this will be adequate to provide the necessary data for the EPA. It may be necessar y to ship emission samples to the University for a more detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, particularly in regard to aldehydes. To our knowledge there is no testing equipment currently available that is designed specifically for ethanol fue led vehicles.

DESIGN MODIFICATIONS

It is anticipated that some modification for cold weather starting of these vehicles may be necessary. This is in an area in which the University of Iowa has gained considerable experience in its research work with Ford Tractor Operations, which include d a combination of block heaters, preheated intake air (which is passed over the exhaust manifold), fueled heaters, propane starting fuel plus a number of other design alternatives with which we are aware. In addition one of the units should possibly be factory equipped with a fuel injection system. It is anticipated, however, that the fuel injection may have to be a retrofit, and this eventuality has already inaugerated a search for appropriate hardware. We also have the advantage of using the Centr al Scientific Research Laboratory on alternative fuels in Ford-Dearborn for design-engineer counsel.

SELECTION OF SPECIFIC SITES FOR VEHICLE TESTING

It has been understood by all concerned that this test program is not being inaugerated for publicity purposes or to sell some sort of public relations image. The units will be tested in an environment that is strictly rural. Although it will be known i n the small community of Audubon that these tests are taking place, there is no intention to encourage public demonstration of these vehicles during the test period, other than what is unavoidable. The location of the units will be selected by a three m an committee that are all Audubon area locals who are either farmers, or have local business interests.

The units are to be used in the same pattern and to perform the same tasks as would be typical for a light weight pickup employed on the farm -- which would include hauling small loads, and farm to city to school travel. It is anticipated that the vehic les would be housed each night on the farmstead. The vehicle operators would carry their own insurance on the vehicle, although the licensing and ownership would be considered as part of the state vehicle fleet titled to the University of Iowa and would carry a state licensing, the latter to be sanctioned through the Vehicle Registration of the Motor Vehicles Division of the Iowa DOT.

TAXES.

There would be no state tax on the ethanol fuel used in the vehicles as this activity would be considered as "in the public service". As mentioned, the vehicles would be owned by the University of Iowa as test and research vehicles.

SUMMARY.

There is a large body of knowledge on the operation and economics of dedicated, ethanol fuel over the road vehicles that has never been scientifically evaluated. There are over a million of these vehicles on the road in Brazil.

This University has, for most of the decade, been involved in evaluating the technical and economic aspects of ethanol produced from corn and ethanol utilization. This University has also done much work in corn utilization in general.

The principle objectives of this project is to establish, using state-of-the-art production -- engineering design, where ethanol fueled vehicles are -- in terms of economic and technical viability. And do these vehicles represent an alternate transporta tion concept, that this country should consider as a partial solution to our over production of corn, as a means of providing some improvement in our balance of payments, and improve our national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

We respectfully request your approval of our undertaking.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

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

TO: MARTIN CHAUVIN -- CHIEF, CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU STATE OF NEW YORK, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-29-87, FROM MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, OCC-745

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year where you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified "school bus" manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an "upper torso restraint" or "shoulder harness" violates, "head impact protection", requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a " lap belt" and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies "occupant protection" requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic res traint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no, "head impact protection", requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating posi tion in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so.

Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of standard 222 refers to a "head protection zone," and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 86-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K.A. Ziomek -- Sales Representative, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/27/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Robert V. Potter (Std. 213). 3/17/89 letter from Robert V. Potter to NHTSA

TEXT:

Ms. K.A. Zionek Sales Representative TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division 61166 Van Dyke Washington, MI 48094

Dear Ms. Ziomek:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 5571.213). Specifically, you asked about the effects of an amendment that becomes effective August 12, 1986. I will address your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

First, you stated that your company is the manufacturer of a child restraint called the "Child Love Seat." A final rule published February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5335) amends Standard No. 213 to require all child seats equipped with a tether strap to pass the 30 mph test without attaching the tether strap. This requirement becomes effective August 12, 1986. Your letter states that you will stop manufacturing the Child Love Seat on August 12 as a result of this amendment. You asked whether your distributors could continue to sell Child Love Seats after August 12, 1986. The answer is yes.

In the preamble to the February 13, 1986 final rule, NHTSA stated the following:

The new requirement would apply only to child seats manufactured after the effective date of this rule. Child seat; manufactured before the effective date of this rule may be sold even if their tether strap must be attached to pass the 30 mph test. Hence, the agency does not see any reason for child seat dealers to be confused by this rule (51 FR 5337).

In accordance with this language, your dealers and distributors may continue to sell Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, until the inventories are depleted, even if these sales occur on or after August 12, 1986.

Your second question was which party would bear the liability for such sales. Since there is no violation of our requirements for selling Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, as explained above there is no liability to be borne by any party, unless, of course, the seats do not comply with the pre-August 12 version of the standard.

Your third question was how long TRW must continue to have replacement parts available for the Child Love Seat. There is no requirement in Standard No. 213 or any of our other regulations that child restraint manufacturers make replacement parts available for any child restraint. Since, your company was never required to make replacement parts available, it is free to stop offering replacement parts for Child Love Seats whenever you choose.

You should, however, be aware of your statutory responsibility to remedy any safety-related defects or noncompliances with the requirements of Standard No. 213. If either your company or this agency determines that the Child Love Seat contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with Standard No. 213, section 154 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(l)) requires you to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the purchaser. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) specifies that such remedy shall consist of either:

(1) Repairing the Child Love Seats so that they no longer have the defect or failure to comply; or

(2) Replacing the Child Love Seats with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint that does not have such defect or failure to comply.

Section 154 (a)(4) limits your obligation to remedy without charge to those Child Love Seats purchased by the first purchaser not more than 8 years before the determination is safe that those products contain a safety-related defect or failure to comply with Standard No. 213.

If a determination of a safety-related defect or noncompliance were made with respect to the Child Love Seats, your company's ability to exercise its statutory right to repair, rather than replace, such seats would be affected by the availability of replacement parts with which to make such repairs. You may wish to consider this when deciding how long your company will continue to have replacement parts available for Child Love Seats.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 2, 1985

Legal Office Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NHSTA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division is the manufacturer of the Child Love Seat and per your recent ruling we will discontinue the manufacturing of this seat on August 12, 1986.

TRW distributes the Child Love Seat through Century Products in the D.S. and Alkot Industries is Canada. We also distribute the Child Love Seat through GM, Honda, Accura, Ford of Canada, AMC and Chrysler.

TRW is concerned that after August 12, 1986 are our distributors able to sell this product? (delete their inventory) Where is the liability placed? How long must TRW continue to have replacement parts?

Any assistance in answering or other pertinent information relating to the above questions are appreciated and I look forward to your earliest response.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

R. A. Ziomek Sales Representative

KAZ/lw

ID: 86-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 5 1986

Mr. William Shapiro Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo child safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations "provide a higher level of protection." You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application (that is, secured by only a lap belt) and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.

With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise "approve" it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.

Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.

With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its child seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle-specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: "As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions." 44 FR 72131, at 72136; December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 9, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #213 - Volvo Child Safety Seat

Dear Ms. Jones:

This will confirm the discussion of March 26, 1986 between Volvo ad NHTSA personnel regarding the Volvo child safety seat. Based on that meeting, we request the following be clarified. Volvo is deeply committed to the safety of all ages of the occupants of vehicles. For the past 10 years, we have marketed in Europe a vehicle-specific rearward facing Volvo child safety seat. We believe the rearward facing mode is a safer way to travel for children than forward facing. Its experience in Sweden has been excellent. However, due to the particular wording in FMVSS #213, we were unable to market it in the U.S.

During the past 1-2 years we have designed ad developed a new Volvo child seat. In the Thursday, December 13, 1979 F. R. V44N241, P. 72136 (Docket #74-9, Notice 6) NHTSA commented on vehicle-specific child seats.

"However, since vehicle specific child restraints can provide adequate levels of protection when installed correctly, NHTSA is not prohibiting the manufacture of such devices. The new standard requires them to meet the performance requirements of the standard when secured by a vehicle lap belt. As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions."

Our development for the U. S. was based on this portion of the Federal Register. This seat is designed to be used by both infants (0-1 year) and toddlers (1-about 4 gears). The new Volvo child seat has universal application in automobiles. In addition, it has vehicle-specific modes for Volvo vehicles which provide yet a higher level of protection.

The Volvo child seat is desired to meet the performance requirements or FMVSS #213 when secured by a vehicle lap belt in the rearward racing mode for infants and the forward facing mode for toddlers. This is the universal installation. Because FMVSS #213 is a minimum performance standard, by fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS #213 in these modes we have fulfilled NHTSA intent as stated in the above mentioned Federal Register and believe this seat is designed in due care to meet the requirements of FMVSS #213.

The Volvo child seat in the vehicle-specific mode provides a higher level of protection than the universal application. This is accomplished by the use of an additional vehicle specific attachment strap and hardware. For both the infant and toddler Volvo vehicle-specific mode, the child rides rearward-facing in the vehicle.

We interpret that the new Volvo child seat, as described above, is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of FMVSS #213, and can be used in both the universal application and Volvo vehicle-specific modes. Your confirmation of that interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

If there are further questions about the Volvo child safety seat, please contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs WS:mc

ID: aiam1363

Dear Mr. Hammond: This is in reply to your letters of October 25, and December 14, 1973 I regret that your earlier letter did not arrive.; You stated that your customer wishes to mount rear identification lamp at the same height from the ground as the rear turn signal, stop, tail and clearance lamps, and that, because of the shallowness of the rear header area it is not 'practicable' to mount them there.; Although it may not be 'practicable' to mount the Grote 272 lamp, specified by your customer, in the header area, there may b other conforming lamps that it would be 'practicable' to mount in that location in a three-lamp identification array. If such lamps are available, then Standard No. 108 takes priority over contractual specifications, especially since the clearance lamps will be mounted at a point other than 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle'.; Yours truly, Richard By. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-3.34

DATE: 10/01/92

FROM: MICHAEL J. VACANTI

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MICHAEL J. VACANTI (A40; STD. 208; VSA 108)

TEXT: I, Mike Vacanti, have designed an after market seat belt accessory to help fit the shoulder strap and the lap belt properly on small children.

Information on this device is enclosed. Please evaluate this information and offer a ruling as to the compliance with current Federal standards.

Also, enclosed please find a self addressed, stamped envelope for convenience in replying. Your prompt attention will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for this consideration.

Attachment

"Embrace" - Child Safety Seat Belt Accessory

PREMISE:

At the age of four, children can legally ride in a car without a "child safety seat" (car seat). To date, auto manufacturers have not made available any device to properly fit the shoulder strap of the seat belt to small children (roughly ages 4-10 years). Without a proper fit, the shoulder strap of the seat belt will the cross the small child near the head and neck area. Therefore, parents generally will loop the shoulder strap behind the small child, or behind the passenger seat. Neither method is safe.

THE DEVICE:

"Embrace", child safety seat belt accessory will effectively fit the shoulder strap of the seat belt to a small child. (See drawing B1).

"Embrace" is a polyurethane device that latches onto the lap belt of the seat belt and also to the shoulder strap of the seat belt, changing the angle at which the belt crosses the child's upper body in front of the child. (See Drawing A1).

USAGE:

I believe this device can be widely used with any and all automobiles that employ a shoulder strap with the seat belt. This device should not be limited to children. Size variances can be developed to fit different groups, such as senior citizens, physically challenged individuals or other special needs. The first application of the device will be children.

DESIGN: This device was initially conceived by Michael Vacanti in the year 1991. After testing with mock-up and redesigning, this device if believed to be ready for production.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED)

ID: nht93-6.6

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TO: Michael Perel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 (est) from John Womack to Richard Horian (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last December, after preliminary conversations with you, Mr. Paul Rice wrote to us regarding the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." We now have progressed in our research to the point of actually prototyping a working unit for further research and study.

One of the operating techniques of this hazard light is for it to flash. Question: What is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in "flashes per minute" that are allowed by Federal law?

Please FAX the answer back at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with our experimentation. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

ID: 1985-04.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Scottie Brown Jones -- comfit Designs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones: Thank you for your letter dated July 29, 1985 inquiring about Federal requirements applicable to children's car seat covers which you manufacture for sale as accessories to child restraint systems.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, the agency has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Paragraph S5.7 of that standard requires each material used in a child restraint system to conform to the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR Section 571.302). These flammability resistance requirements apply to new child restraint systems used in motor vehicles or aircraft. The flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers for child restraint systems only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install a seat cover for a child restraint system which does not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

However, aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by child restraint owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, the agency urges all manufacturers of such seat covers to comply voluntarily with our safety standards.

A copy of Standard No. 302 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Scottie Brown Jones July 29, 1985 Comfit Designs 1721 S. La Rosa Dr. Tempe, AZ 85281

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC, 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please advise as to the Federal requirements an/or regulations in regard to children's car seat covers (removable cloth covers sold in children's departments as an accessory to a car seat). I have been in contact with Shirley Barton at NHTSA (202/425-9294) who was unable to supply me with this information over the phone and suggested that I direct my inquiry in writing to you.

I have a small cottage industry. I have designed a children's car seat cover using 9 oz. terry cloth (86% cotton, 14% polyester) and gingham (35% cotton, 65% polyester) which I intend to market. This cover was originally intended to protect a child in the summer from the extremely hot plastic and vinyl used in many car seats. It fits any size toddler or infant car seat, is removable and would be purchased as a car seat accessory. Unlike covers already on the market, my design dose not use a fill and is, therefore, exempt from a bedding lisence. Other than that, it uses materials not unlike those already on the market (terry cloth and gingham). The major difference is that it covers more of the car seat than any other product presently available.

I appreciate your quick response to this inquiry. If you should have any further questions. I would be glad to answer them. I can be reached before 10:30 a.m. EDT at 602/967-1547. after that time please call 602/965-6163. Sincerely, Scottie Jones cc. Mr. Radovich

ID: 77-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

FROM: WILLIAM B. STOVER

TO: BRIAN YOUNG -- OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/77 (EST) FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER U.S. CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have been unable to get a third seat belt installed in the back seat of our 1972 Datsun Model 1200 automobile. The denials to accept the work have been based on claims of prohibition by federal law. The seat cover and top shops that used to do seat belt work before the new safety laws no longer do so as far as I have been informed.

The occupancy limit of this model has been repeatedly stated as the reason. A sticker in the glove compartment states that the occupancy of the car is limited to four adults of 200 pounds each plus a specified amount of luggage. This equates to 400 pounds of people in the back seat. Two 200 pound people in the back seat would be a tight fit, especially with the room taken by the bulky seat belt retractors. Three people totaling this 400 pound limit would not fit.

When my wife and I purchased the car, we had two small daughters. During September, 1975, we had a third daughter. Soon after her birth, we tried to get the extra seat belt installed to anchor a car seat for her in the middle of the back seat, i.e., over the bump. We were unsuccessful then and have been unsuccessful at periodic attempts to do so since then. I called Congressman Dornan's local office and discussed the problem with you after the latest attempt; a run-around involving phone calls to over ten automotive businesses.

The weight/occupancy limit is especially frustrating as the total weight of the five members of our family is significantly under 400 pounds. The fact that I was a strong advocate of wearing seat belts long before they were required also makes this conflict with the seat belt laws very frustrating.

We appreciate your efforts in our behalf.

Thank you,