ID: 1984-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. Yamada -- Technical Research Group, Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/26/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Melanie Turner (A33; Std. 205); 4/13/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Moe Pare (Std. 205); 11/3/88 letter from Melanie Turner to Erika Z. Jones (OCC 2777)

TEXT:

August 6, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of FMVSS 205

According to FMVSS 205, the windshield glass of a passenger car must have marks on it, such as "DOT" and the manufacturer's code mark. But, we wonder if any problem would be caused from a compliance point of view if the mark were to appear underneath the moldings when the car was assembled? Please review the diagram below.

"INSERT"

I look forward to your reply. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group U.S. Office

KY:gcm

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration AUG 31 1984

Mr. K. Yamada Assistant Manager Technical Research Group Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Yamada:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1984, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code mark required by the standard must be visible when a windshield installed in a passenger car. You explained that the windshield molding may cover the required marks.

The certification requirements of section S6 of the standard do not require the markings to remain visible after installation the glazing on a glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. The agency does, however, urge manufacturers to place the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code mark in a visible location whenever possible. Having the symbol and code in a vehicle location enables State motor vehicle inspection officials and U.S. Customs officials to easily determine if the glazing in the vehicle conforms to our standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phillip Ables -- Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Phillip Ables Work Activity Director Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita Rt. #1 1908 Winnsboro Rd. Monroe, LA 71202

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, making for information and assistance regarding regulations applicable to child car seats, any safety standards applicable to those seats and the agency responsible for testing.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213) sets forth requirements which must be set by all devices designed for use in a motor vehicle to seat children who weigh not more that 50 pounds. I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. As you will see, Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that the restraint protect a test dummy during a 30 mph crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 (copy attached) and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is required to deliver the equipment to be certified to a governmental agency for testing and approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all; we only require that the certification tbe made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend that a manufacturer producing child restraints certifying compliance with Standard No. 213, especially for the protection requirements in a 30 mph crash. Once the manufacturer determines that its child restraint meets the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by putting the appropriate language on the label permanently attached to the restraint.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken.

If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraints contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(8) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(8) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer any elect to either:

l. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

You noted in your letter that your group had been asked to make car seats for children with physical disabilities. Since you are getting into a highly technical area, you may wish to contact Dr. John Melvin, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. Dr. Melvin has experience testing child restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children, and could provide you with information concerning that testing. His telephone number is (313) 763-3462.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Council Enclosures

July 30, l984 Mr. Steve Kratske Office of Chief Council NHTSA 4007 Street Southwest Washington, DC Dear Mr. Kratske:

ARC/O Industries is a sheltered workshop for the handicapped operated by the Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita. For the past year, we have been manufacturing customized, adaptive equipment-side lyers, prone standers, wheelchair inserts, etc. -for handicapped children.

The equipment we manufacture is made from a special type of laminated cardboard, four sheets thick, of remarkable strength and durability. The material is cheap, resilient and may be cut, painted, glued and doweled without difficulty.

Recently, we have begun manufacturing adaptive inserts for Handicapped Children's Services, a State Agency serving children with physical disabilities. This agency has asked us to make car seats to be used in the transportation of their clients.

I would appreciate any information or assistance you could give us regarding the regulations for manufactured car seats, safety standards, and agency responsible for testing. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, Philip Ablas Work Activity Director Association for Retarded Citizens/Quachita

ID: 1984-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager, Quality Assurance Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager Quality Assurance Department Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 200 Parkridge, Illinois 60068

This responds to your letter dated February 17, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you asked several questions regarding the construction and labeling of hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars. In a subsequent telephone call to this office, your associate, Mr. Kitayama, informed us that your brake hoses would be used in motorcycles as well as passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose and fittings used in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. The requirements of the standard are the same regardless of whether your hoses are used in passenger cars or motorcycles.

Your first question asked whether a hydraulic brake hose may be constructed out of nylon. The answer to your question is yes. Nylon may be used to manufacture hydraulic brake hose, as long as the hose can meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your second question asked whether the standard prohibits labeling hydraulic brake hoses which have inside diameters between 0.110 and 0.118 inches as "1/8." The answer to your question is no. S5.2.2(d) of FMVSSS No. 106 requires that a hose's nominal inside diameter be expressed in inches or fractions of inches.

We note that the constriction requirement for hydraulic brake hoses in section 5.3.1 of Standard No. 106 is, of course, applicable to your hoses. That section states that:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.

Since the standard does not include tolerances for the labeling requirements for hydraulic brake hose, the standard does not prohibit you from labeling your hose "1/8." You should consider, however, how your brake hoses will be used in the industry and determine whether a safety problem might result from labeling your hose "1/8" when in fact they are smaller than 1/8 inch. One safety concern that you should consider is whether the tolerances you selected would result in the problem of mismatched hoses and end fittings. Another safety concern relates to the effect that cold weather has on the flow of fluid through the brake hose. Cold weather may thicken the fluid and restrict the flow through the hose. The thickened fluid and restricted flow through the hose may result in an increase in the time required for the brakes to respond.

Regardless of whether labeling your brake hose "1/8" is regulated by FMVSS No. 106, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider also the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 17, 1984

Office of Crash Avoidance Handling and Stability Div. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

Re. Questionnaire of Hydraulic brake hose for automobiles.

We are a manufacturer of automotive parts including hydraulic brake hose assembly to Toyota Motor Corporation and other Japanese auto makers. Our company name is registered in your file as follows:

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose maker

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose assembler

We have been developing new type of hydraulic brake hose for automobiles shown as attached, and making sales promotions. And regarding such a new type, please let us have the attached information.

We would like to ask you to answer to us by March 15, 1984.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Very truly yours,

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

Kazuhiko Ohkochi Manager Quality Assurance Dept. KO/kk Encl. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE

2.1 The above structure shows that a tube is made of Nylon, and meets performance requirements of FMVSS 106. As FMVSS 106 does not stipulate that a tube shall not be made of Nylon, we think that such a Nylon hose is also included among hydraulic brake hose for automobiles. We would like to have your comments on this matter (such a hose can be certified as a hydraulic brake hose).

2.2 If such a Nylon hose is certified, the hose's inside diameter is between 0.110 and 0.118 inch, and a little smaller than 1/8 inch (0.125 inch). We are now scheduled to use the hose as 1/8 inch hose and to subscribe "1/8" to the hose surface. We would like to know as to whether this subscription has any problem.

ID: 1984-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Purna Saggurti -- Research and Development, Nu-Fuel Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Purna Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Loretto, TN 38469

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1984, concerning the use of compressed natural gas (CGN) in vehicles. You asked the agency to clarify its position on CNG and to answer several questions about the alteration of a gasoline power vehicle so that it is both gasoline and CNG powered.

You are correct that Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, does not apply to CNG powered vehicles. The standard does not apply to vehicles using fuel, such as CNG, which has a boiling point below 32oF. Thus, the standard does not prevent the use of CNG in motor vehicles.

At the present time, the agency has no plans to extend the standard to CNG fuel systems. If you believe that a regulation on CNG systems is necessary, you can petition the agency to commence rulemaking. A copy of the agency's regulation on rulemaking petitions is enclosed.

The agency has prepared an extensive information sheet which explains how the standard applies to aftermarket installation of dual fuel systems in motor vehicles. Since the information sheet addresses the issues you have raised concerning CNG conversion, I am enclosing a copy for you review.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

August 8, 1984 Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As an alternate energy consulting agency, gaseous fuel Research and Development unit and a manufacturer of High Pressure Natural Gas Compressors, Carburetion Equipment and High Pressure Flow Meters, all of which are used in the automotive section for the application of Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel, Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. is concerned about the vague perspective of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301-75 and the lack of a comparable standard for Compressed Natural Gas.

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 "is to reduce deaths and injuries occuring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes", and applies to vehicles using fuel "with a boiling point above 32oF".

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 is commendable and is quite the priority of all users and manufacturers but the boiling point limitation eliminates the applicability of this standard to such alternate fuels like Compressed Natural Gas, whose boiling point is way below 32oF.

It has become an unjustified norm in the State Commission offices like those of the State Board of Education and their Superintendents that as the FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and as there is no comparable standard written by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for CNG, the usage of this economically incentive fuel is prohibited and as such shy away from it. It is thus imperative that the National Traffic Safety Administration make it very clear to the public where it stands and what its going to do about CNG and its usage. For example: "FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and does not prevent the usage of CNG. As a standard for CNG usage does not exist/is in the making, all those fuel systems that are manufactured and installed as per the National Fire Protection Agency Standard 52 written for Compressed Natural Gas vehicles would be accepted."

The safety record of Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles is enviable. The fuel containers used are DOT 3AA high pressure steel cylinders which have an incomparable safety factor attached to them. A recent severe abuse test done on composite reinforced aluminum storage cylinders (Society of Automotive Engineers Conference proceedings P-129, paper 831O68, June 22-23, 1983) only help in emphasizing with authority the superior structural strength and stability of these fuel containers over those containing gasoline and diesel.

A theoretical analysis done by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Gaseous Fuel Safety Assessment for light duty automotive vehicles-LA-9829-MS) shows that CNG is a far superior fuel from safety perspective, over gasoline and diesel, in both primary hazard and secondary hazard situations.

It is thus an irony that in spite of all these advantages the state level controlling agencies refuse to endorse this most economically viable fuel, all because the NHTSA has not taken a stand on this issue.

Almost all CNG conversions are done on used vehicles and all of them are done on vehicles that are sold without the intention of resale, thus the installers and component manufacturers are not required to go through the recertification process.

Is an alterer who converts a used gasoline powered vehicle so that it is both a gasoline-powered and a CNG-powered vehicle, responsible for recertification according to FMVSS 301-75 and if so what else does he have to meet?

A tamperer from the NHTSA stand point is one who changes components of a fuel system and he is supposedly exempt from the penalties if he does not indulge in the removing, disconnecting or reducing the performance of the already existing equipment. From a structural integrity standpoint the new component; have a safety factor of 4 to 1 and meet and exceed all of the NFPA 52 requirements. As the FMVSS 3O1-75 does not have specs written down for these components it would be beneficial to both parties to accept some norms set down by another Federal Agency which has covered both, component quality and installation procedures.

In conclusion, an indepth study of the CNG conversion process should be done by NHTSA and then necessary standards should be set up. A clear definition of an alterer, tamperer and their liability on working on used vehicles should be spelled out.

I would appreciate your responding to this at the earliest possible date letting me know of any applicable violations. I would also appreciate your making it very clear if NHTSA prohibits the usage of Compressed Natural Gas in passengers vehicles including school buses.

Please find enclosed, a brochure that explains our conversion process. Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions.

Thanking you.

Sincerely Yours, Purna R. Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development PRS/sa Encl.

ID: 1984-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.D. Carter -- International Legal Dept., Hope Computer Corporation AS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. D. Carter International Legal Department Hope Computer Corporation As 1 Hobrovej DK-9560, Hadsund Denmark

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification of certain of the agency's standards. The answers to your question are discussed below.

1. Standard No. 203, impact protection for the driver from the Steering Control System, does not require the use of a specific design for the steering column. It requires that when the steering column is tested, it must absorb a certain amount of energy. Manufacturers have thus far chosen to meet this requirement by using a steering wheel and column which incorporate an energy-absorbing unit in them so that the column collapses in a controlled manner in a crash. You are correct that an air cushion equipped vehicle complying with the occupant crash protection criterion of Standard No. 208 in a frontal barrier crash does not have to comply with Standard No. 203.

2. You pointed out an inconsistency between the description of Standard No. 216 in DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 and the text of Standard No. 216 codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The text in the CFR is correct. Compliance with Standard No. 216 was an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 prior to August 15, 1977. When the provision allowing compliance with Standard No. 216 as an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 was eliminated, the text of DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 was not corrected. Thank you for calling this matter to my attention.

3. Your third question asks, in effect, whether automatic or motorized belts are considered automatic restraints under Standard No. 208. You question whether they would qualify since "they still have to be latched." You are correct that if automatic or motorized blts have be latched by an occupant before they will provide protection, they would not be considered automatic restraints by this agency. However, Volkswagen currently sells in the United States an automatic belt system which does not require latching before each use and which is certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Like wise, Toyota sells a motorized belt system which does not require latching and is certified as complying with Standard No. 208. I have enclosed for you information a copy of the Department's July 11, 1984, final rule on the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208.

4. Neither Standard No. 301 nor the requirements of Section S9.2 of Standards No. 208 apply to batteries used in battery-powered vehicles. There are no other safety standards that set performance requirement for batteries.

5. Your final question asked whether S4.5.3.3(b) of Standard 208 should conclude with the words "or condition (C). You are correct that the words "or condition (c)" should appear at the end of S4.5.3.3(b). On January 8, 1981, the agency amended section S4.5.3.3(b). The amendment as published in the Federal Register include the words "or condition (c). Unfortunately, the the correct text was not adopted in the Code Federal Regulation. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Att: Mr. Oesch, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir

I am writing to obtain clarification/interpretation of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 CFR 571, certain sections of 14 U.S.C.A., as well as a DOT pamphlet which, though not a statue or regulation, is an official publication providing guidance concerning NHTSA practice which the user cannot glean from the statutes and regulations. Our lack of clarity may be due to inability to promptly obtain the latest changes and materials; thus, I am enclosing photocopies of the sections to which I refer.

1. According to DOT pamphlet HS 805 674, revised November 1983, page 7, SN 203, it would appear that the forward yielding steering column is required ("by providing"), though this requirement nowhere appears in the test of SN 203; is the forward yielding steering column required by the SAE "Steering wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure" or has the forward-yielding steering column proven to be the only way of meeting the requirement in practice in the absence of an air cushion ("by means other than seat belt assemblies",S2)?

2. According to the same DOT pamphlet, SN 216 "provides an alternative to conformity with the rollover tests of SN 208." This alternative is stated in general terms. However, SN 216, S3 expressly exempts convertibles from meeting the rollover standards of SN 208 if they meet the roof crush resistance standards of SN 216. Has this exemption been extended in practice to all passenger cars? Quite clearly, the wording of SN 216 exempts passenger cars meeting the requirements of SN 208's rollover test by means that require no action by vehicle occupants from the roof crush requirements of SN 216, but how is the contrary read form the wording of SN 216?

3. Note on page 312 of 49 CFR 571, 1.Oct.82, defines "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in 49 CFR 571. 208 as "a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. Under this interpretation, the concept does not include 'forced action' systems as described above". Thus, since automatic or motorized belts still have to be latched, they would not qualify as passive restraints, since passive belts are defined in 49 CFR 571. 208 S4.5.3 as requiring "no action by vehicle occupants". The note on page 312 concludes "This interpretation is not intended to rule out the possibility that further rulemaking action may be taken in the future to permit such systems in certain cases." Recent articles have led me to believe that subsequent to 1. October 1982, "passive restraints" have been interpreted to include automatic or motorized belt systems, as will as air cushions and energy-absorbing interiors. Please inform us on the current concepts of "passive restraint" and "no action by vehicle occupants".

4. It is not immediately clear that car batteries or battery-powered cars are covered by 49 CFR 571.301; neither does 49 CFR 571.208 (S9.2) seem to cover batteries. What standards are controlling for the battery power system in a motor vehicle?

5. Hope Motor Company A/S of Denmark has undertaken to import battery-powered motor cars into the United States. If we should need to apply for a 15 USCA 1410(a)(1)(c) exemption, the battery-powered vehicle may be required to quality as a "low-emission vehicle", as defined in 15 USCA 1410(g). Could you confirm that the battery-powered car does indeed qualify as a "low-emission" vehicle? The relevant data are enclosed in schematic form.

6. Should 49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.3.3 in fin (just prior to subsection A) conclude with the words "or condition (C)"?

I would appreciate your prompt assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, HOPE COMPUTER CORPORATION AS M.D. Carter International Legal Department

Encs.

ID: 1984-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning your meeting with Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom of my staff. As you requested, this letter confirms and clarifies the answers to the questions you asked in your meeting concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

The answers to all of your questions are based on our understanding that Hino Motors would be furnishing a bare chassis to a final-stage manufacturer who adds a school bus body to complete the vehicle. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1) If Hino Motors is producing an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Part 568.3, then Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, sets forth the requirements Hino must meet. Part 568.4 sets forth the specific information you must provide in an incomplete vehicle document. Part 568 does not require you to certify the incomplete vehicle as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 301. It does require you to make one of the statements set forth in Part 568.4(a)(7).

2) Part 568.4(b) requires each incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide an incomplete vehicle document. The document must either be attached to the incomplete vehicle or sent directly to a final-stage manufacturer, intermediate manufacturer or purchaser for purposes other than resale to whom the incomplete vehicle is delivered.

3) Part 568.6 requires each final-stage manufacturer to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable standards and to attach the certification label required by Section 567.5 of Part 567, Certification.

4) As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Hino Motors need only comply with Part 568. I note that Part 568.7 permits an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to assume voluntarily all of the duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the final-stage manufacturer. If Hino were to assume those duties, then Hino would have to affix the label required by Part 567.5(e).

5) The crash test in Standard No. 301 sets forth the procedures the agency will use in conducting its compliance tests. A manufacturer is not required to conduct crash tests, but may instead rely on such things as engineering analyses or computer modelling to determine if a vehicle complies with a standard.

6) As discussed above, Standard No. 301 sets forth the test procedure the agency will use in its testing. Section 6.5 of the standard provides that the moving barrier test for school buses may be conducted at "any point and angle" on the schoolbus. If a manufacturer is going to do crash testing, the type of testing it uses is left up to the manufacturer. The agency urges manufacturers using crash testing to conduct a test (angle and location of impact) which represents the most difficult test for the vehicle. The maximum speed in the agency's crash test for schoolbuses is 30 mph.

7) At present, there are no pending notices proposing to modify the requirements of Standard No. 301.

B) 1. and 2. The Office of Chief Counsel issues all of the agency's interpretations of the safety standards. Copies of all of our interpretations can be obtained from the Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies of the agency's compliance test reports can be obtained from our Technical Reference Division, Room 5108 at the same address.

Your final questions concern the requirements of S7.1.6(c) of Standard No. 301. You are correct that the test is to be performed on a completed vehicle. If Hino wishes to do crash testing of its chassis, it can be done in the bodyless condition. Since the chassis has no seats, we would suggest you attach the test weight of 120 pounds per designated seating position directly to the chassis.

Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom have asked me to thank you for sending them a copy of the photograph you took.

Sincerely,

HINO HINO MOTORS, LTD.

Our ref. TUSA-90809

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Stephen Oesch

Thank you for your kind attentions to us during our recent visit to your place. Many thanks to your sincere reply to our questions concerning FMVSS.

We would like to confirm the content of your reply and make additive questions.

I. Confirmation of the content of your reply on that day.

1. FMVSS No. 301: Concerning Fuel System Integrity

1) In case we supply school bus chassis and the body manufacturer makes the body and completes the vehicle, we must certify this FMVSS in chassis condition (without body).

2) Moreover, we should issue to the Body mfr. "Incomplete Vehicle Document" attached to the vehicle.

3) After this Body mfr. should certify it as a completed vehicle.

4) All we have to do on this regulation is sufficient with this and nothing more is necessary.

5) The requirement of this regulation is to meet the items and value of the regulation, and the actual crash test itself isn't indispensable condition. That is to say, either by calculation or by test, we only have to certify that our vehicle meets the requirements of this regulation.

6) Test condition of Crash Test Concerning crashing speed, point, angle and etc, the manufacturer shall establish the condition judged with basis as the most strict. That is all depends on the idea of Hino. By the way, it is proper to consider that crash speed is the Max. speed; 30 MPH.

7) There is no movement of revision on this regulation for the present.

B. General Item

1) Concerning "Interpretation" and "Test Results", it is possible to read and copy (including request of copy in written form) them. By the way, "Interpretation" and "Test Results" are kept in Room 5109 and Room 5108 respectively.

2) Mr. Berndt: Chief Counsel (Tel 202-426-9511) is the proper person to inquire about FMVSS in written form from now on.

II. Additional questions

1. Judging from S7.1.6.(c) about FMVSS No. 301 S7 Test Condition, this test is supposed to be performed by completed vehicle. Please advise us about the Test Condition when we perform the test by chassis condition. For example,

Is test vehicle in bodyless chassis condition as Hino shipment?

In case the vehicle is bodyless, how will the weight loading condition as the establishment of weight condition 120 lb in design seat position of S7.1.6.(c)?

We will appreciate your early reply.

Please say hello to Ms. Deirdre F. Hom And enclosed please find your photographs taken during our stay in your office as a good memory.

Thanking you again for your kind attentions.

Takabumi Akaboshi Deputy Manager Technical Department Technical Division Overseas Operations

ID: 1984-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 1984-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.S. Anson -- Managing Director, Anson Plastics Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. R. S. Anson Managing Director Anson Plastics Limited Brunleys, Kiln Farm Milton Keynes MK11 3EN England

Dear Mr. Anson: This responds to your July 27, 1984, letter to Mr. George Parker of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for reply.

You asked whether your nylon tubing brake hoses may be sold to vehicle manufacturers in the United States if the tubing met the requirements of Standard No. 106, but did not conform to the requirements of any SAE Standard, viz. , SAE J844, "Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing." The answer to your question is yes.

Under Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) manufacturers are prohibited from selling or importing into the United States new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which did not conform with such Standard (15 U.S.C. 1397). If your brake hoses comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, they may be sold in this country.

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines a "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

We wish to emphasize that flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes are "brake hoses." Your nylon tubing air brake hoses are thus required to meet all applicable requirements of the standard. These requirements are extensive and include tests relating to high and low temperature resistance, oil and ozone resistance, length change, air pressure, burst strength, tensile strength, water absorption and tensile strength, zinc cloride resistance, and end fitting corrosion resistance.

Your hose need not be tested to requirements that are obviously inapplicable.

For example, the adhesion test is not applicable because there are no layers in the hose's construction which could fail to adhere.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 106, as of this date. For your convenience, we are also enclosing an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

Finally, in your letter you indicated that Title 49 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Chapter III, specifies requirements for brake tubing designed for use between a towed and towing vehicle. You inquired into the requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for brake tubing used in other applications. We have forwarded your letter to that agency for their reply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1984-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM R. WILLEN, ESQ. -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-7-84 TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., ATTACHED; OCC 1018 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; STD. 218; OCC 1018

TEXT: We have received your Defect and Noncompliance Information Report dated August 7, 1984, and appreciate your submittal of it.

However, further information is needed before we are able to consider the petition for inconsequentiality that American Honda filed on June 14, 1984. Specifically, we must judge whether Honda, which describes itself as the "distributor" of the helmets, is the proper party to file the inconsequentiality petition. Such petitions are filed by "manufacturers" which is a term defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5) to include not only assemblers but also importers for resale.

Your letter of August 7 names two manufacturers of the helmets concerned, Shoei Safety Helmet Corp. and Bell Helmets, Inc. If the helmets manufactured by Shoei were imported from Japan by Honda, then Honda is a statutory "manufacturer" of these helmets and may file the petition. Would you therefore confirm whether Honda is the importer of the Shoei helmets.

We assume that the helmets manufactured by Bell were produced in the United States. If they were produced solely for Honda and the headsets installed solely at Honda's direction, or by Honda after delivery to Honda, then we would consider Honda the "manufacturer" of these helmets for purposes of the petition. However, if, for example, the Bell Star which corresponds to the Hondaline Hawk, were also fitted with the headset by Bell, then it would appear that Bell should be a co-petitioner or file a separate petition. We therefore would appreciate knowing at which point in the manufacturing process the headsets have been installed, whether the installer was Bell or Honda, and whether, to Honda's knowledge, Bell installs any headsets in any helmets it produces that are not sold to Honda.

When these clarifications are provided, we shall consider your petition further.

ID: 1984-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William E. Hedenberg -- President, Comfort Crew Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Hedenberg President Comfort Crew, Inc. 716 South Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, Illinois 60090

This responds to your August 13, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the certification requirements for the air suspension systems you manufacture. According to your letter, your suspension systems are retrofitted to medium and light duty trucks by your dealers and by "special equipment" aftermarket manufacturers. In a subsequent telephone call with Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff, you clarified your question by stating that your air suspension systems would be added to new vehicles prior to their first sale. Also, you stated that the installation of an air suspension system on a vehicle would not affect the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.

There is no requirement at present that air suspension systems be certified. The certification label is a manufacturer's representation that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there are no standards that presently apply to air suspension systems. However, if your system is installed by a dealer on a new vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 467.7, Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles,the person installing the suspension system on the new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You should refer to 49 CFR Part 567.7 for the specific certification requirements for alterers.

As stated above, you as the manufacturer of the air suspension system would have no certification requirements. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification. Should a noncompliance be discovered as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (12 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

Regardless of whether there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which applies to your air suspension systems, you should be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to discuss this matter with your attorney and insurance company.

As you requested, we have previously returned to you the "Ride and Handling Evaluation" that you submitted with you letter.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1984

Ref: Air Suspension Certification

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In regard to the above, I have been referred to you by Ms. Dedra Hom of your office.

We have completed approximately two years of research and development, testing and market studies of an air suspension system for medium to light duty trucks. Although we are manufacturing the system, our dealers, and aftermarket manufactures such as R.V., ambulance, and special equipment firms will be retrofitting the removal of the O.E.M. steel spring suspension, and 100% bolt on retrofit of our system..

Enclosed is a Ride Handling Evaluation report, conducted by Bendix Automotive Proving Grounds, an independent testing firm. You will please note two areas of comparisons, Page 2, Item 4.3, HANDLING LANE CHANGE, and on Page 7, and Item 7.5, DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS. These test were without a rear stabilizer bar. We have now designed a rear bar, and have returned our vehicle to Bendix for comparisons. We cannot at this time provide any results, but through many demonstration rides by unbiased drivers, all opinions are that the vehicle roll on cornering is much less than the O.E.M. equipment. Bendix has also completed an accelerated durability of the design. Their report is in the compiling stage at this time. If you would, please return the RIDE and HANDLING REPORT at your earliest convenience.

We hav exhausted a considerable amount of investigating throughout N.H.T.S.A., D.O.T., F.M.V.S.S., and G.S.A. and cannot seem to locate any specifications which are written for suspensions. We are confident that you system will be beneficial to the consumer, and we do wish to comply to any Federal Standards. I you would please forward any requirments of suspensions as to certification, vehicle labeling, etc.

We request that our inquiry be expedited as our first units are scheduled to be shipped by September 7, 1984.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

Sincerly yours, William E Hedenberg President WEH:sc enclosure