ID: nht90-1.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Stephen W.A. Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TO: Stephen R. Kratzke -- Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 5 photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210 (text and graphics omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 (text and graphics omitted) (test results are available i n the file); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Pickering (A36; Std. 111, Std. 202, Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Per our conversation by telephone please find enclosed photographs, drawings, descriptions, and accompanying data that I have available at this time concerning the product I am making, trade named "RUMBLE SEAT". The product is a rear facing auxilary seat ing system for Pick up trucks.

It is a unique product that I have initiated a patent application on and a product which I have designed to be as safe and comfortable as I can.

It is my wish to be in compliance with any applicable codes and standards that I am now aware of or those I become aware of at a later date.

I have used for reference the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 containing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standards.

I have listed those standards that I feel may apply to my product, and those I feel I am in compliance with, Or at least those I feel I am NOT out of compliance with.

CODE 49-Standard 209 "Seat belt Assemblies"

I believe I am in compliance by the "DEFINITIONS" S3 by using a Type 1 seatbelt assembly a "LAP BELT FOR PELVIC RESTRAINT" please see enclosed test data on the seatbelts I am now using.

CODE 49 Standard 210 "Seatbelt Assembly Anchorages"

I have enclosed pictures, drawings, and test result data for you to determine compliance, I feel I comply here also.

CODE 49 Standard 571.208 "Occupant Crash Protection"

S4.1.1.3.2. "Convertibles and open body type vehicles" provides that either Type 1 or Type 2 seatbelt assemblys may be used. I am using a Type 1 belt assembly Manual Seatbelts, again, please find test data.

CODE 49 Standard S571.111 "REARVIEW MIRRORS"

My product provides seating for 2 (two) people with space between each

seat to help minimize interference with drivers "FIELD OF VIEW" When the seats are un-occupied with the headrests down there is very minimal interference with view and does not compromise, my compliance status at all.

CODE 49 Standard 571.202 "HEAD RESTRAINTS"

I feel I need HELP with interpertation and compliance here.

Because my product sets directly behind the cab, facing the rear of the pick-up bed, any adult would find the back of the head in close proximity to the outside rear of the cab.

It seemed prudent, therefore, to offer some sort of protection

While there may be several ways to attempt to accomplish this I need to settle on one that will be in compliance with the codes and standards of your bureau.

One way would be a stationary headrest in corporated in the product.

Another may be a stationary headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be an ADJUSTABLE headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be a removable headrest either on the product itself, or on the cab. (I WOULD FAVOR THIS SYSTEM)

I decided an adjustable headrest incorporated into the product would be the best way to proceed.

There is one other choice that I have considered, and I am in the opinion that I may have an easier time with compliance. I briefly describe the other system in the enclosed explaination and drawing.

I am asking you to comment as to the possibility of compliance of each system described I have outlined here.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope to be in contact with you regarding my progress in complying with any applicable standards. ANY additional suggestions you may have would be helpfull.

enclosed:

1. test results of seatbelt systems from United States Testing Co. 2. Test results for seatbelt bar anchorage system from Stoutco. 3. Photographs and drawings of product seeking compliance. 4. Possible alternate headrest mounting systems. explaination a nd drawings.

(Photos and text are omitted but are available in the file.)

ID: aiam1504

Dear Mr. Cheetham: This is in reply to your letter to Michael Peskoe of NHTSA's Chie Counsel's Office asking our comments on a sample defect notification letter Sears plans to send to known purchasers of the Armstrong L78-15 Allstate Wideguard Dynaglass tire having the identification number CEV3FP1372.; The sample notification letter you enclose would not conform to 49 CF Part 577, 'Defect Notification' in several respects. To comply with section 577.4(b) we believe your letter should include, in addition to the existing statement, a statement that the tires failed to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We have taken the position that defect notification letters resulting from failures of compliance with applicable safety standards should contain that information, as it would be required under section 575.5(b) were the notification sent following an administrative proceeding.; We also believe the letter should include precautions the purchaser ca take to reduce the chance that the failure will occur (S 577.4(c)(4)). Such precautions could be stated as the corollary to the failure mode you describe, *i.e.*, avoid prolonged driving.; The letter further fails to conform to Part 577 in that it does no evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section 577.4(d). Vehicle crash would seem to be a potential result of tire failure, and the letter should therefore contain language meeting section 577.4(d)(1).; Finally, the letter does not conform to section 577.4(e). It is no clear whether the 'replacement free of charge' will include mounting or balancing, both of which might be considered by consumers as part of a free replacement. Consequently, we find that the description required by section 577.4(e)(1) is incomplete. There is further no attempt to meet the requirements of 577.4(e)(2) or (e)(3), requiring a date by which replacement parts (tires) are available (if they are presently available, the letter should so indicate) and how much time will be necessary to perform whatever labor is included in the replacement.; In order for your letter to conform to Part 577, it must be modified i each of the respects described above.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-9.31

DATE: February 3, 1992

FROM: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Arthur J. Kuminski (A39; Std. 206)

TEXT:

Eberhard Manufacturing manufactures industrial and vehicular hardware. We are presently in the final stages of prototyping a custom lock system for Grumman Olson to be used on their "Route Star Walk-in Vans". Enclosed are a picture and some specifications on the Route Star to help explain how the door is used.

The reason for my letter is to request further interpretation from your organization on the testing standards for sliding doors on cargo vans. The following standards are the ones I have questions about:

Standard No. 206 S4.3 Sliding Doors - The track and slide combination system or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position.

S5.3 Sliding Doors - Compliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is their a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you for your help.

ID: aiam4963

"Dear Dr. Clark: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). More specifically, your letter indicated your belief that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to designate an item of glass-plastic glazing that it manufactures as 'Item 14' glazing if that glass- plastic glazing item passes all the tests specified for Item 14 glazing. It is your view that it is irrelevant whether the individual glass layers in the glass-plastic glazing are tempered or annealed glass. Your understanding is correct. Standard No. 205 specifies the performance requirements for Item 14 glazing, through a series of 14 tests designated for that item of glass-plastic glazing material. No test applicable to Item 14 glazing specifies that any individual layer, either glass or plastic, of this laminated glazing is to be tested separately. Instead, the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing set forth performance levels that must be achieved by the glazing as a laminate. One of the 14 tests designated for Item 14 is Penetration Resistance, Test No. 26. You are correct in noting that, effective September 23, 1991, Test No. 26 specifies the glass-plastic specimen is to be clamped into a test fixture before the specimen is tested. If an item of glass-plastic glazing passes each of the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing, including Test No. 26, with clamping, and complies with Standard No. 205's labeling and certification requirements, the prime glazing material manufacturer of the material may designate that item of glass-plastic glazing as Item 14 glazing. You were also correct in your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits Item 14 glazing to be used for passenger car glazing in any position except the windshield of convertibles. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht79-3.12

DATE: 11/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Schultz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportation regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.

From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether any law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.

There is no law administered by this agency which would bar an individual from installing a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual or by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as to the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75 Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seg.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor-vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

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 . . .

Thus, if one of the named persons or entities added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY, (Illegible Pages)

THANK YOU,

C ROBERT SCHULTZ

LUND INDUSTRIES INC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam2743

Dear Mr. Payne: This is in response to your letter of December 23, 1977, requestin clarification as to whether the modified Odometer Disclosure Form which you prepared would meet the Federal requirements. Specifically, you are requesting permission to inform the buyer of the vehicle that the mileage is unknown because the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease. It has been the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that if the seller does not know that the mileage indicated is wrong, he should not state that the mileage is unknown. More than mere lack of knowledge is necessary to check the mileage unknown box. The seller is not, however, precluded from adding a statement that the vehicle was subject to a commercial lease or otherwise outside of his control.; It appears from the form which you submitted that you are modifying th disclosure statement which is no longer to be used. The form was substantially changed, with those amendments to be effective as of January 1, 1978. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Register notice of the amendments. Your client must certify to the accuracy of the odometer to the best of his or her knowledge under the amendments, however, as I stated before, he or she is free to add additional statements explaining the vehicle's history.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0043

Dear Mr. Donnelly: Mr.Bridwell has asked me to reply to your letter of December 1, 1967 In your letter you raise three questions. The first is:; >>>'(1) We find that in smaller rim diameter molds that it i impossible to place all the branding in the white sidewall side as shown in Figure 1, Page 14 - MVSS No. 109.; In complying with a state requirement, namely V-1, it was necessary t place the stamping above the buffing rib. Permission is requested to place the stamping above the rib in a protected area where it will not be scuffed and destroyed.'<<<; The labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 make it mandatory tha the approved symbol (DOT) and the code mark be between the maximum section width and the bead, other information need only be conspicuously labeled. Additionally, there is no requirement that the information be in one section of the area specified, but rather the entire circumferential area can be used for labeling.; Your second question is: >>>'(2) *Reprocessed Tires* In tire manufacturing sometimes a mold fold will occur in the area o the branding. The area is buffed. If such stamping is removed, will it be necessary to rebrand the tire, or will the use of a label be sufficient? This usually occurs on one side of the tire only.'<<<; Your question concerns new tires that have had the labeling informatio removed by some subsequent manufacturing process. In order to comply with S4.3 of Standard No. 109, the tire will have to be labeled on both sidewalls. Please note however, that S4.3.1 states that 'until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporates all specified information not molded into or onto the tire'.; Your third question is: >>>'(3) *Removal of 'V-1' From Molds* It is our understanding that MVSS Standard No. 109 and 110 prompt th 'VESC' regulation 'V-1' revised. We are also aware that states can impose safety regulations for tires and motor vehicles provided they are higher than the Federal Standard and are for use on the state owned equipment.; We request a statement from the Department of Transportation statin the position the Department will take regarding the 'V-1' requirements.'<<<; Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not require that tires b manufactured without the 'V-1' symbol. Presently, a manufacturer may, at his option, continue the practice of molding tires with the 'V-1' symbol.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-3.37

DATE: 05/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Gracey; Maddin; Cowan & Bird

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 2, 1974, to Mrs. Winifred Desmond has been referred to this office for reply. In your letter you discuss what you consider to be an omission in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, viz., requirements for manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of vehicles in the hands of purchasers when those vehicles are found to contain safety related defects.

You are correct in stating that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require manufacturers to provide sufficient parts for the repair of defective vehicles in the hands of purchasers. The statute limits manufacturers' responsibilities, as you point out, to notification of owners.

The NHTSA has, however, taken some regulatory steps which relate to the availability of repair parts. The "Defect Notification" regulations (49 CFR Part 577) require manufacturers to estimate and specify in the defect notification letter the day by which repair parts will be available (49 CFR @@ 577.4(e)(1)(ii), 577.4(e)(2)(iii), 577.4(e)(3)(iii)). While this does not require repair parts to be available, it at least prohibits manufacturers from keeping purchasers in the dark on the availability of repair parts. Knowingly incorrect statements in response to this requirement can subject a manufacturer to civil penalties and other sanctions.

There are pending in the Congress amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (S. 355, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973): H.R. 5529, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973)) that would in general require manufacturers to repair vehicles found to contain safety related defects without charge to the vehicle purchaser. If such legislation is enacted it would eliminate the problem of the availability of repair parts where safety related defects are found to exist.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: aiam0655

Dear Mr. Walters: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1982, requesting the lates information regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, clarification of 'leakage' and comments regarding U.S. Patent No. 3,610,263.; An amendment to FMVSS No. 301 will be issued in the near future i response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making published earlier, 35 F.R, 13799. The substance of this action involves extending the scope of the rule as indicated in the Notice, but the details of the final amendment will not be disclosed before issue. A copy of the Notice is enclosed.; Paragraph S4.4 does not mention leakage but refers to fuel spillag which is defined in S3. There is no assurance that this proposal will remain intact in the final rule since the comments from the industry, continued research, and development work, and many other inputs will influence the course of this rule making.; We are not in a position to comment of the features of any particula device, since our concern is primarily with performance requirements in order to permit originality and choice of different means for design of improved performance. We appreciate the information about your patented fuel tank safety valve assembly, and shall place a copy of this patent in our Docket No. 70-20. This docket is a public file to receive information and comments on matters pertaining to the rule making action on fuel system integrity.; We appreciate you interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2644

Dear Mr. O'Reilly: This is in response to your letter of June 14, 1977, commenting o certain statements made in the May 12, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 24056) responding to petitions for reconsideration of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*. Specifically, you object to the reference in the notice to the Houdaille cost-benefit study and to the statement that the Harris poll indicated that a 'significant' number of people consider 1/2 inch dents to be damage they would repair.; The notice referred to the Houdaille study as one which indicated tha the damage criteria contained in Part 581 could be met in a cost-beneficial manner. The agency did not represent that the Houdaille study demonstrated that Part 581 standard was the most cost-effective standard that could be promulgated.; With regard to your objection to our characterization of the number o people who would repair a 1/2 inch dent as 'significant,' you should note that it is the conclusion of the agency that the percentage of those people polled (25 percent) who expressed concern over a 1/2 inch dent is *significant*.; Regarding your suggestion that a 2 1/2 mph impact test be adopted, th agency proposed such a change in Part 581 on January 2, 1975 (40 FR 10) and determined after a period for submission of comments and a 2-day public hearing that such a reduction should not be adopted (40 FR 11598, March 12, 1975). The agency's position on that matter has not changed.; We appreciate your comments and have placed your letter in the publi docket.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook