ID: 1984-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: EF Technology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Sprafka:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1983-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

B.E. Diehl, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

Dear Captain Diehl:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking three questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, stated in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.

3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements for glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-3.37

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Salt Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 29, 1979, asking whether folding front seats on a two-door, 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have locking devices.

The answer to your question is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207) specifies in paragraph S4.3 that "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device."

You stated in a telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of my office that your 1978 Malibu does not have such a restraining device, either manual or inertia-activated. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has found, however, that the front seating system of the 1978 Chevrolet Malibu two door sedan does in fact have a seat back locking device that is actuated by an inertia system. This system has been certified by General Motors Corporation as meeting the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. A description of this system is found on page four of section one in the owner's manual. If the inertia restraint system in your vehicle does not perform as described, you should contact your Chevrolet dealer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 29, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise me whether or not the folding front seats on a two door 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have a locking device.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Loureiro -- INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY

ID: nht81-2.9

DATE: 03/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981, asking whether the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions) Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of the standard as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Paragraph 5.2 of J580 states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens."

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles. We therefore view the prohibition of J580 as applicable to use of any sealed beam headlamp, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is installed.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicity permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

The agency therefore has concluded that no motorcycle headlamp may have a glass shield in front of it when in use.

ID: nht81-3.27

DATE: 10/15/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Colt Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether any Federal regulations apply to propane fuel systems designed for use in motor vehicles.

I am enclosing an information sheet which sets forth the implications under federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other types of gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel systems on motor vehicles, if propane is the only fuel involved. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on vehicles other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Piste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

Colt Industries Inc

August 17, 1981

Frank Bernt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Bernt:

A division of Colt Industries is interested in developing and marketing a liquified propane gas fuel system for motor vehicles.

It is naturally of vital importance that we be familiar with any federal design, performance or private laboratory (United Laboratories) approval regulations that might exist. On this matter, our contact with NHTSA officials has uncovered no such regulations. Your comments would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions.

SINCERELY,

DON W. UPSON

cc: W. POTOROKA

ID: nht87-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/87

FROM: G T DOE -- LOTUS ENGINEERING

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/15/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GT DOE; VSA 108, STANDARDS 208, 216 LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO J. DOUGLAS HAND

TEXT: Dear Madam

Lotus is proposing to introduce a convertible car into the United States. It is planned to develop and certify the car as a two seat convertible. It is recognised, however, that if no other provision is made, accessory manufacturers may offer 'hardtop' conversions to our customers. In anticipation of the latter possibility, a factory manufactured and approved quality hardtop optional conversion would be offered. The hardtop would consist of a composite roof structure, which would replace the convert ible canopy and support frame. The removal of the latter would reveal a trimmed luggage shelf behind the two designated seating positions. It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could trave l in this area. The fitting of the hardtop would in no way degrade the quality, reliability, or safety of the vehicle. The application of the hardtop conversion is depicted in the accompanying illustration.

It is possible that, whilst vehicles would be imported as convertibles, individual dealers might elect to fit hardtops to new vehicles and display them in their showrooms in this condition.

Could you please give interpretations with respect to the following:-

1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of FMVSS 216. Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for any further information, or discussion regarding the above.

ID: nht80-2.7

DATE: 04/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

April 18, 1980

SUBJECT: Interpretation of Part 581 Damage Criteria

FROM: Chief Counsel

To: Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

You have requested an interpretation of the term "original contour" as it appears in the Part 581 bumper standard, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8), and 581.5(c)(11)(i) and (ii). The standard limits the amount of deviation from original contour permitted for the vehicle exterior surfaces and bumper face bar 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact. You ask whether original contour refers to the configuration of the exterior surface or face bar prior to the commencement of any testing, or prior to a particular test impact or test mode.

In establishing the Part 581 standard, NHTSA concluded that the typical vehicle will be involved in more than one lowspeed bumper impact over its expected life. In order to assure a performance level which meets the demands of normal driving conditions, the agency determined that bumpers should be capable of providing an acceptable level of damage resistance in a series of impacts. In keeping with this purpose, "original contour", as used in the Part 581 protective criteria, should be established prior to the initiation of any testing, and the tested surface or face bar should not deviate from this contour beyond the prescribed limits throughout the pendulum and barrier test sequences. The other interpretations would not serve the stated purpose, since they are based on a changing reference condition and would permit damage to accumulate from test to test.

Frank Berndt

ID: nht80-3.20

DATE: 07/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1980, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to headlamp design. Specifically, General Motors asks whether a headlamp with a mounting tang that differs from the design illustrated in SAE Standard J571d, Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1976 and SAE Recommended Practice J1132, 142 mm x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit, January 1976 is permissible. It is your opinion that this variance has no effect upon headlamp interchangeability or otherwise affects safety.

As you know, paragraph S4.1.1 requires headlamps to be "designed to conform" to SAE materials incorporated by reference, which include J571d and J1132. The SAE materials contain detailed drawings and dimensional requirements which manufacturers have followed in headlamp design. Standard No. 108 has been criticized for its specificity regarding headlamps although this aspect of it has been judicially upheld as necessary to the overall safety performance of the headlighting system. Standardization through such specificity is necessary to achieve the safety goals of interchangeability and ease of replacement.

To encourage innovation and relieve manufacturers of unnecessary restrictions, as well as to enhance the performance aspects of Standard No. 108, we believe that a manufacturer can certify that its headlamps have been designed to conform to Standard No. 108 without the necessity of strict adherence to the SAE dimensions if the safety purposes of Standard No. 108 are in no way compromised. Principally, headlamps must continue to be interchangeable with those of like nominal dimensions. With this in mind, the tang design postulated by General Motors is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 provided that headlamps incorporating it are interchangeable with those that meet all the design specifications of SAE J571d and SAE J1132.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht80-3.36

DATE: 08/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 9, 1980, letter requesting clarification of the Federal requirements for door locks on fire trucks. Specifically, you ask whether Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206), is applicable to fire trucks.

As Mr. Oates of my office stated in his telephone conversation with you, Safety Standard No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Since fire trucks are not specifically exempted in the standard, they would be considered "trucks" and would have to comply with the standard. There are certain types of doors on vehicles, however, that do not have to comply with the requirements of the standard. Section S4 of the standard provides:

Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard.

Therefore, certain doors on fire trucks may not be required to have locks. For example, a door leading to a cat-walk or standing area on the fire truck that contains no seating position would not have to comply with the standard. Likewise, a passenger compartment door that is readily removable would also not have to comply. I believe that many fire trucks have these type doors. You should check with your sales people to see if the vehicles they saw at the Fire

Equipment Show would qualify under the exceptions mentioned above. If you are aware of specific models that should comply with the standard but which do not, we would appreciate being apprised of that information. I hope this has clarified the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht81-1.1

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kux Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1980 asking whether any Federal regulation "prohibits the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles."

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation administered by the Federal Highway Administration of the Department of Transportation impliedly prohibit the use of red reflectors on the front of vehicles subject to its jurisdiction by requiring that all reflectors, other than those at the rear, be amber in color (49 CFR 393.26(d)). The common contract, private or exempt carriers covered by this requirement are found in 49 U.S.C. 303.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108) applicable to the manufacture of all motor vehicles contains a general prohibition (paragraph S4.1.3) against installation of reflective devices that impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Because of the generally accepted lighting coding of amber to the front and red to the rear, we would view installation of red reflective material on the front of a vehicle as prohibited by S4.1.3.

SINCERELY,

KUX MANUFACTURING COMPANY

November 25, 1980

Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

Our Company is a manufacturer of vehicle graphics for the trucking and automobile industries. It has been our understanding that there is a Department of Transportation or other federal regulation prohibiting the use of reflective red markings on the front of vehicles. I would appreciate a response from your office as soon as possible verifying whether, in fact, such a prohibition exists. If so, please provide a citation for the provision.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Eric C. Oppenheim Corporate Attorney

cc: J. JONES