ID: nht90-4.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Mark G. Southern

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Child car restraints

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Mark G. Southern from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Recently I contacted Mr. George Shifflett in your office regarding federal and state safety requirements for child car restraints. I have reviewed FMVSS No. 213, and would like to obtain further clarification as to whether it is applicable to the device that I have designed. I have enclosed sketches of my devise for your review.

Specifically my question relates to FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.1 which reads as follows:

Each (add-on) child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back and component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back. (53 F.R. 1783-January 22, 1988. Effective: January, 22, 1988)

My child safety devise provides additional restraint for children from the ages of two (2) to seven (7) years old; however it is not the primary restraint. The vehicles existing seat belt is the primary restraint.

I am requesting an interpretation as to whether it is permissible for my devise to attach to the seat back as shown in the attached diagrams.

My patent council has recommended that I request confidentiality from anyone, with whom I show the design. I would like to request confidentiality in this matter and that your office not publish or release any information with respect to my design, with out my approval.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at work (206) 389-5055 or at home (206) 838-4530.

ID: Bruno 2954

ID: nht81-2.6

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Boyd, Payne, Gates & Farthing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MARCH 20, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Charles E. Payne Boyd, Payne, Gates & Farthing Virginia National Bank Building Suite 1240 One Commercial Place Norfolk, Virginia 23510

Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the problem plaintiffs' lawyers in civil cases have in obtaining certain data from foreign manufacturers of automobiles. Your letter specifically asked if there are any Federal safety standards concerning the crashworthiness of automobile seats. You state that the Department of Transportation informed you by letter that there are no such standards.

This is incorrect. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for vehicle seats in passenger cars and other vehicles. The standard requires passenger seats to be able to withstand forces equal to twenty times the weight of the seat without collapsing. This is a static test in which the force is applied directly to the seat. The standard does not, however, require a dynamic crash test of vehicles to determine seat integrity, such as the tests used by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety cited in your letter. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), Toyota Motor Company is required to certify that its vehicles comply with Safety Standard No. 207. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your information.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you require any further information (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

March 5, 1981

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Congressman Bill Whitehurst forwarded to you my recommendation concerning legislation or regulations aimed at forcing foreign manufacturers of mechanical products imported into this country, to file for record with your agency certain data accessable to private litigants. You sent him a reply letter dated February 18th and he sent me a copy.

Your letter was informative and helpful. I would even agree that the regulations that you referred to are of some help. However, I do not think they truly meet the problem.

A news release issued by the Department of Transportation reported that foreign imports were notably less safe than their American counterpart automobiles. I also have in my possession in connection with litigation I am now pursuing against Toyota, data from various organizations around the country which data discloses that occupant safety and crashworthiness are of little concern to those who manufacture their cars and ship them into our country from abroad. The same data also diclosed that American manufacturers, on the other hand, have by-in-large, done very well in comparison to the foreign manufacturers in the area of crashworthiness and occupant safety.

I believe that most attorneys who practice products liability litigation will agree that the greatest single impetus for improved crashworthiness and occupant safety of American automobiles has been our system of tort liability, and the effectiveness of our courts and plaintiff's counsel in bringing to light defects and unsafe designs in automobiles.

Apparently however, most notably our Japanese friends have by-in-large not been subjected to the same examination by litigation of their design concepts and practices with respect to occupant safety. I for one am convinced, as are a good many of my colleagues at the plaintiff's bar, that part of the reason for this is the substantial difficulty of gaining access to files and records of the foreign manufacturers. This same difficulty was a subject of an in depth investigative reporting effort by "60 Minutes" last year. Perhaps you are aware of it.

The problem has not been an inability to gain in personam jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturers. That is the easiest part of it. However, once they are in court, they have proven very adroit at using every conceivable tool to preclude production for examination by plaintiff's experts of such things as design specifications, computer simulation data, and films of crash testing. Their excuses include the language barrier, the transoceanic legistics and communications probIems, as well as the "We are a multi-national corporation with warehouses full of documents, and it is impossible to locate what you want" excuse.

I believe that if the Japanese and Germans, whose cars are the principal culprits, were forced by the spector of substantial civil liability quickly and efficiently imposed, they would build their cars with the crashworthiness and occupant protection equal to American cars. I also dare say that if they had to do so, they could not market their cars at a price competitive to American makes.

While I appreciate the intent of the regulations you cite which require all automobiles imported to be certified to meet the Department of Transportation safety standard, that program does not appear to have yet begun to prove effective. One reason is that the Department of Transportation safety standards are by no means comprehensive. In particular, with respect to the suit I now have against Toyota, the Department of Transportation has advised me by letter J that there is no safety standard currently in existence with respect to the crashworthiness and design safety of passenger seats. The decedent, whom I epresent, died as a result of his seat collapsing upon moderate rear end impact making it possible for his upper torso, neck and head to be whipsawed, and in turn resulting in a fatal injury to the brain stem. It is with somewhat bitter irony that I refer you to report A-4650.01, dated November 1973, issued by General Environments Corporation and prepared for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That report and others like it cite over and over again that upon moderate impact from the rear, the seats of most of the foreign imports collapsed, exposing the occupant to serious and avoidable risk injury, whereas the same testing done on American makes shows a dramatically lower incidence of seat failure.

If I have been misinformed, and if there truly is a Department of Transportation safety standard concerning the crashworthiness of automobile seats, I would appreciate a copy of such standard. Also, if there is such a standard I should like to report that I have serious reason to believe that Toyota automobiles manufactured between 1973 and 1979 do not meet anyones safety standard with respect to the design of their seats, and especially the bucket seats.

I appreciate your time and attention to this letter and its intent.

Yours very truly,

BOYD, PAYND, GATES & FARTHING

Charles E. Payne

CEP:wjb

cc: Mr. James Kelly

ID: nht80-1.26

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Brinks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your earlier questions concerning Federal requirements for fuel systems on motorcycles. As stated in our previous letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fue' System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), does not apply to motorcycles. You are correct in your assumption that there are no Federal regulations that would preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles. I might add that Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for any vehicle (e.g., that the tank be made of metal or any particular material). Rather, the standard specifies performance levels that the entire fuel system must achieve during barrier crash tests.

Although no safety standards or other regulations preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles, you should still be responsible for assuring that such tanks are safe. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any defect relating to motor vehicle safety which may exist in the manufacturer's product (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). The manufacturer would be required to notify all purchasers of the existence of the defect and to remedy the defect at the manufacturer's expense.

I might point out that the agency is concerned that fiberglass fuel tanks will shatter upon impact in a collision, rather than crushing as do metal tanks. If you have any crash data regarding the performance of fiberglass motorcycle fuel tanks, we would appreciate receiving the information

I hope this has answered all your questions.

SINCERELY,

January 26, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt;

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my query about motorcycle fuel tanks. Could you clear up one remaining point? In your reply you state that the FMVSS regarding fuel system integrity does not apply to motorcycles. Does this mean that motorcycle fuel tanks can legally be made from fiberglass? A fiberglass fuel tank can be much lighter, stronger and more resilient than a comparable steel one, but I would like to make sure that such a tank is legal. Thank you very much for your help.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht68-1.43

DATE: 06/21/68

FROM: ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA; CONCURRENCE BY GEORGE C. NIELD

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of June 4, 1968.

In your letter you refer to (1) an earlier letter dated November 8, 1967, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the application of the motor vehicle safety standards to recreational vehicles; and (2) a Petition for Reconsideration of the Chassis-cab regulation filed March 19, 1968.

With regard to your letter of November 8, as you know from conversations with members of the staff of the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service and the Chief Counsel's Office this letter was misplaced. By letter of May 8, you were good enough to send a copy of the letter of November 8, noting that of the eleven questions asked two have not been clarified by some action taken by the Federal Highway Administration. The unanswered questions are quoted and answered below:

Question --- 3. "The inside mirror need not have the field of view prescribed by Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No. 111 (even to the point of providing no view of the road behind a truck camper if the camper mounted on the truck obstructs the driver's vision) provided an outside mirror is installed on the passenger's side of the truck cab, as required by Paragraph S3.2.2."

Answer -- You are correct in your understanding of Standard No. 111. Subparagraph S3.2.2 of Standard No. 111 specifies that if the inside mirror required by S3.1 does not meet the field of view requirements of S3.1.1, an outside mirror of substantially unit magnification shall be installed on the passenger's side.

Question --- 10. "Everything said above concerning truck campers applies equally to truck caps, which are enclosures (roof, sidewalls and ends but no floor and usually no built in equipment) mounted on a pick-up truck.'

Answer --- Truck caps which you describe are considered to be in the same category as slide-in campers and are items of motor vehicle equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such truck caps must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, and Motorcycles.

With regard to your Petition for Reconsideration filed March 19, 1968, you note in a letter of May 13, 1968 that three matters raised in the Petition are still unanswered and further action is required. The problems you raise, as you know, are complex. The entire problem of the applicability of the standards to vehicles produced in the multi-stage is still under consideration.

ID: nht73-3.16

DATE: 01/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: The Cooper Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1973, which requests an advisory opinion as to whether, under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to use a serial tin which would mold onto the tire mold surface four numbers indicating the day of the week, the numerical week and the last digit of the year. The tin would be placed immediately after the third grouping of the tire identification number which is used as a descriptive code to identify significant characteristics of the tire and to identify the brand name owner if the tire is manufactured for a brand name owner.

The regulation was written with the possibility in mind that some manufacturers might want to identify their production by day as well as by week and year. Therefore, the regulation provided that the third grouping, which is optional, could contain as many as four spaces so that one of the spaces could identify the day of the week.

The method you propose using appears to include the day of the week in the fourth grouping of the tire identification, not the third grouping as was contemplated. However, the practicability of your suggestion is recognized and while the regulation speaks in terms of groupings, as you point out there are no overall dimensional limits and no specified spacing requirements between the third and fourth groupings. Therefore, there would be no prohibition

against your using an insertable serial tin system which would make up the last four symbols of the tire identification number and which would identify the day of the week, the week of the year and the year.

ID: nht81-3.28

DATE: 10/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Johnson, Campbell & Moesta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards or regulations concerning the use of brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Vernon Bloom of the NHTSA apparently told you that the agency has no standards regarding vehicle fuel lines.

Mr. Bloom is correct in his statement that no Federal safety standards or regulations preclude the use of brake hose as a vehicle fuel line, and that there are no standards directly relating to fuel lines. However, the agency does have a safety standard which indirectly involves fuel lines. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specifies performance requirements governing fuel systems on new motor vehicles. The standard specifies the maximum amount of fuel leakage that may occur following a barrier crash test of a new vehicle. Although the individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, do not have to meet specific requirements, each component obviously must be durable in order for the entire system to meet the general performance requirement of Safety Standard No. 301. Therefore, you should ascertain whether the brake hose you intend to use as a fuel line would compromise a vehicle's ability to comply with that standard.

I would also point out that, although there are no safety standards directly relating to fuel lines, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects which may occur in their vehicles or equipment. Section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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. Under these provisions, you would be responsible if it were determined that your fuel lines constituted safety-related defects.

SINCERELY,

JOHNSON, CAMPBELL & MOESTA, P.C.

September 8, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

On September 1, 1981 I spoke with Mr. Vernon Bloom, Engineer for NHSTA in Washington, D.C., as to whether or not NHSTA had any standards as to the use of Synflex brake hose as a fuel line in commercial vehicles. Mr. Bloom has informed me that NHSTA has no standards regarding fuel lines.

I am writing this letter requesting a formal written statement that NHSTA has no standards as to fuel lines.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Daniel M. Jaworski Legal Assistant

ID: nht91-6.32

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl H. Kester -- President, Seatco

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-19-91 from Earl H. Kester to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning requirements that apply to retail establishments that sell and install replacement seats on used vans and pickup trucks. You noted that a vehicle's seats affect its compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and asked whether businesses which sell and install replacement seats are required by Federal law to use ones that enable the vehicle to continue to comply with that standard. As discussed below, the answer to our question is yes.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 . . . .

In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which removes and replaces a seat must use a replacement seat which enables the vehicle to continue to comply with Standard No. 208 and other safety standards for which the original seat was designed to ensure compliance. I note that the "render inoperative" provision does not require a company to test a vehicle after installation of a new seat to ensure that it continues to comply with all applicable standards. However, if an analysis of the replacement seat, as installed, indicates that the resulting vehicle would no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and other relevant safety standards, the company could not legally perform such an installation.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht74-2.3

DATE: 10/07/74

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

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 24, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, although the painting of the trailers and their delivery to Southern had not been completed.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall --

(1) manufacture for sale, sell . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

We consider a vehicle to be "manufactured" for purposes of the Act where the vehicle has been completed in all respects except for the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations such as painting undertaken at a later date. A discussion of this point appears in the preamble to a recent Standard No. 121 rulemaking action (39 FR 17564, May 17, 1974). As for possession of the trailers by Southern, delivery of the vehicle is not considered a element of the manufacturing process.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Southern Railway System

Law Department

September 24, 1974

T. W. Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

Southern Railway Company is in the process of taking delivery on 1,000 new trailers from the Fruehauf Corporation. These units are being built in Ft. Madison, Iowa and are being shipped over the road to St. Louis, Missouri, where Kux Manufacturing Company is stenciling them. They are then delivered to Southern at our East St. Louis, Illinois Intermodal Facility.

There is no question that Fruehauf will complete the manufacture of these units by January 1, 1975. On the other hand, there is serious doubt that Kux will complete the stenciling by that date and make delivery of all 1,000 units to us. MVSS 121 (the new "brake law") applies to units manufactured after January 1, 1975. Is our understanding correct that as long as the trailers in question are manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, they will not be required to be fitted with the new brake system, even though some of them may actually be delivered after January 1, 1975?

I would appreciate your advice, confirming the foregoing understanding of the law.

With many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, -- Senior General Attorney

cc: C. E. Webb -- Assistant Vice President-Engineering & Researh, Southern Railway Company

ID: nht72-2.42

DATE: 04/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1972, in which you presented a series of questions concerning the meaning of several requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Our reply deals with the questions in the order you asked them.

1. Your first question concerns the meaning of the statement in section S5.4 that "a brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements on this section." To paraphrase your question, the quoted language means that if a given brake assembly is subjected to the road test, the same brake assembly with the used lining need not conform to the dynamometer requirements. Conformity to the dynamometer requirements will be determined by testing an identical brake assembly with new linings. The petitions for deletion of dynamometer testing would have made the road test the only test. The standard requires both tests, even though two sets of identical brakes will be used, and our statement that the petitions were denied is therefore correct.

2. You point out that the measurement interval used in S5.4.1.1 for determining average torque, which begins when a specified pressure is reached, differs from the interval specified in S5.4 for measuring deceleration, which begins with the onset of deceleration. Although we agree that you may need different instrumentation for measuring average torque and average deceleration, we do not agree that their is any conflict since average torque and average deceleration are not required to be measured at the same time. We consider the present method of measuring torque and deceleration to be the correct methods.

3. The typographical error in section S5.4.1.1, which you have correctly edited to read "Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the brake chamber air pressure by 10 psi each time," has been corrected by a revision in the March 29, 1972, Federal Register.

4, 5, 6. The requirements of S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.3 concerning average deceleration rates should not be understood to mean that a manufacturer, in his own testing, must test at exactly that rate. It is advisable for him to test in a manner that offers assurance that the brakes will pass when tested in the manner specified in the standard. Typically, where a test value such as 9 fpsps is specified, manufacturers tend to use more adverse values in their own testing. Under the former wording of these sections, the compliance agency could have tested brakes at decelerations higher than the specified minimum, and it would have been much more difficult for a manufacturer to ascertain his "worst case" situation.

The notice proposing to amend the weight conditions for truck-tractors should be issued within the next two months.