ID: nht95-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht90-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARCIA M. AVIS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/03/89 FROM MARCIA M. AVIS -- M. AVIS CO TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, OCC 3509

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the st rap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket compo nents of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of m otor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes tho se responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or m otor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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 , this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or

motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would neg atively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child rest raint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly r endered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of @ 108 (a)(2)(A).

The prohibitions of @ 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not r ender inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Enclosure

ID: dec 11 571.213--Aftermarket built in CRS--Lt. Douglas

ID: 10117-2

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclosed with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawings, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe that in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident light to be passed through the window material. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can adequately view the driving environment through all the windows that are requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows in passenger cars). Installation of your blinds as proposed would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205 because the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only of the glazing itself. Your blinds need not comply with the standard either by themselves (because they do not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with windows (because they are not attached to the window). However, if the blinds were installed between two panes of glass, the combination of blinds and glass would be considered a multiple glazed unit and would have to meet the standard.

Another safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) requires, among other things, that the area in front of the driver provide protection when struck by the head during a crash. NHTSA believes that installation of your blinds in front of the driver could have an impact on compliance with that standard, regardless of your assertions that they would not. If your blinds are installed on a sun visor so that a hard object (e.g., a rigid mounting hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, compliance with the standard might not be achieved. Moreover, new requirements for cushioning in the header area are due to be phased in 1998.

Another safety standard, No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, requires that shades, such as your blinds, burn at a rate of not more than 4 inches per minute. If installed in a new vehicle, all surfaces of your blinds would have to meet this requirement.

We have some additional safety-related concerns regarding your invention. If a malfunction caused the blinds to lower or close while the vehicle is in motion, then the driver would not be able to see through the affected window. This would be particularly dangerous if the blinds for the windshield were deployed unexpectedly. Moreover, the blinds could make exiting from a vehicle more difficult if the windows had to be used for egress after an accident occurs. Mounting hooks for the side window blinds would also be a concern for impact with the head in a side collision and for emergency egress through the door (e.g., by catching clothing).

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . " For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:12/11/95

ID: 08-004775 latouf march 20

ID: nht81-3.15

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vector Cars

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1981, asking "for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only".

Our exemption procedures would not really be responsive to your situation. They are intended for noncomplying series production where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship, where an innovative safety device or low-emission propulsion system is being developed, or where an equivalent overall level of safety is being provided. Most importantly, as you need immediate relief, the process from receipt of petition, through a public comment period, to final action takes about 4 months.

Under our importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(vii) a manufacturer is permitted to import noncomplying motor vehicles for purposes of test or experiment, and operate them on the public roads for a period of one year, upon submission of information concerning the purpose of the test, the anticipated amount of road time, and the intended disposition of the vehicle at the end of the test period. The purpose of this exception is to encourage innovation. Although no comparable exception is provided under our regulation for vehicles that are not imported, in balancing considerations of safety (noncompliance of one Vector windshield with Standard No. 205) with the policy of encouraging small businesses and innovation, we have decided that the technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act involved in this instance (introduction of a nonconforming vehicle into interstate commerce), is not one which the agency would pursue. You have informed us that the Vector requires immediate development of an emission control program, that the vehicle will not be sold, and that when a conforming windshield is received it will be installed. Under the circumstances of your case we have concluded that the same exception that would be available were the car imported, should be made available to a vehicle of domestic manufacture.

SINCERELY,

VECTOR CARS

August 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Confirming a telephone conversation with Miss Joan Griffin and a gentleman attorney of your office, on August 6, 1981, we wish to petition for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only.

We are currently developing a vehicle known as the VECTOR, the production version will be aimed at the prestigious GT market, historically dominated by foreign cars.

We request this exemption for the following reasons explained in more detail in the attached letter to Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804.

1. We have secured an experimental permit Executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emission controls for period of 12 months.

2. Our emission controls program spans a full year and it requires the vehicle to driven on the California highways for this period.

3. Lead time to obtain a legal AS-1 glass windshield to fit our vehicle is approximately 6 months. This span subtracts from our 12 month CARB permit and leaves insufficient time to complete our program

(Graphics omitted) and obtain Emission Certificate.

4. Windshield production tooling is expensive and dependent on final production configuration. This configuration should "firm up" within the next 6 months. Tooling expenditure prior the this point would be in jeopardy of being wasted. In any case, as soon as a legal AS-1 glass can be obtained for the prototype it will be immediately installed and the plastic windshield will no longer be used.

5. The success of the VECTOR CARS program is considerably influenced by our investor who requires the vehicle to be registered by the State of California.

6. The limited use of the car negates, in a practical sense, the basic restriction to plastic as a windshield material, (the optical degeneration due to abrasion), since the wipers will seldom, if ever, be used.

7. The car will be driven by professional drivers and no safety hazards are planned in our testing program.

8. The car is a prototype and will not be sold.

In our conversation with Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol on August 6, 1981, (916-445-1865) he indicated that California would honor the NHTSA exemption. A letter from your office indicating the granting of the exemption would allow us to clear the (Illegible Word) obstacle with the California Highway Patrol in obtaining a California license.

If there is any thing more needed from us to expidite the granting of this petition, please do not hesitate to call me.

Jerry Wiegert President

July 30, 1981

Capt. C. E. King Commercial and Technical Section California Highway Patrol

Dear Capt. King:

We wish to request an experimental permit allowing the use of a polycarbonate plastic windshield in our prototype vehicle, the VECTOR W2 TWIN-TURBO.

We are currently involved in the development of an experimental prototype vehicle known as the VECTOR. This is to become a limited production sports car aimed at the prestigious GT market segment which has too long been dominated by foreign cars.

The newly completed prototype is a result of 8 years of research and it has already received a tremendous amount of publicity through both television and automotive journals internationally. Previously, we have trailered the car to track testing sights and to shows. However, we have come to the point in time where we need to have the car registered for use on California highways. This is necessary for several reasons: One is that we have already established an emissions testing program that requires operation funding for our program that requires operation of the vehicle on the highway. Secondly, any further funding for our program hinges on our investor's request to register the car with the State of California.

Our present problem is that the car meets all Federal and State requirements except for one-the plastic windshield. We of course will use an AS-1 glass windshield in our production cars, but, as you may know, glass tooling demands an extremely long tooling time and requires a large capital investment. We cannot secure the funds to pay for the tooling without first registering the car, and we cannot delay the emissions testing program.

We have already secured an experimental permit from the California Air Resources Board, executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emissions controls for a period of 12 months.

Our glass manufacturer has indicated a lead time of 6 months. Even if we had the funds now for the glass tooling, there would not be enough time to conduct our emissions work. If we have to wait until the glass windshield is installed, approximately 6 months from now.

As we understand it, from the technical viewpoint, the polycarbonate windshield (which is approved for aircraft use), is adequate for all safety requirements except on, the degradation of optical qualities caused by windshield wipers and other abrasions.

In our case the car will see limited street usage and will only be driven by a few qualified professional drivers. It will not be operated in inclement weather, negating the use of the windshield wipers which are installed on the car. Plus, the screen has a special coating to eliminate abrasions.

Since this vehicle is a prototype only and will not be sold, we would like to request your permission to obtain a temporary exemption (12 months) based on the responsibility of engineering and safety design done thus far, the VECTOR W2 is the safest production sports car ever designed for the street.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me so that we can expedite this matter as soon as possible.

Jerry Wiegert President

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

August 10, 1981

File No.: 62.A3020.A4889

Jerry Wiegert Vehicle Design Force Vector Cars Division

Dear Mr. Wiegert:

We cannot issue the experimental permit requested in your letter of July 30, 1981, for the temporary use of a plastic windshield in your prototype vehicle. Experimental permits issued pursuant to Vehicle Code 26106 are for the purpose of gathering data to support changes to statute or regulations. Issuing a permit for the purpose you requested would not be consistent with the intent of law.

Standards adopted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require glass type glazing complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 205 in windshields and other windows of all motor vehicles. You may wish to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMVSS 205. Petitions should be directed to the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Office of Standards Enforcement, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Although we would oppose such an exemption on the basis of the safety issue involved, we would have no choice but to allow the vehicle to operate in California once the exemption is granted.

C. E. KING, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: nht87-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert C. Geschwender -- Lin-Mart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Geschwender Lin-Mart P.0. Box 82431 Lincoln, NE 68501-2431

This responds to your November 3, 1987 letter to me asking whether any of our regulations apply to the "Head Hugger," an aftermarket product you have designed for use in motor vehicles. The Head Hugger is a head pillow that attaches to a head restraint a nd is designed to support a passenger's head and neck when he or she is seated in a reclined position. I hope the following information is helpful.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of mo tor vehicle equipment, we have no standard directly applicable to the Head Hugger. Thus, the manufacture and sale of your aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Feder al motor vehicle safety standard.

However, if the Head Hugger will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product in certain circumstances. That section of the Act requires m anufactures, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with our standards for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202) of flammability resistance (St andard No. 302). In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

Again, however, the prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the Head Hugger, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

There is an additional aspect of the Act of which you should be aware. The act requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that th e Head Hugger contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

We have enclosed a copy of the act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies or our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

3-11-87

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.- Room 5219

Dear Ms. Jones:

I wish to establish if there is any legal requirement on a new "after market" automotive product which I have designed.

The item is an auto head pillow for use in the reclined seat position.

The item named Head Hugger is upholstered with polyester and polyester and cotton blend fabrics. The filling is fire retardant polyurethane foam block.

If this product manufactured as an after market item falls under any federal regulations, please supply copies of acceptable regulations. Thank you.

Yours Truly,

Robert C. Geschwender

cc: Senator J.J. Exon

HEAD HUGGER TM

(Recliner AUTO PILLOW)

The head hugger is designed to be used in conjunction with reclined auto seats. Although reclined auto seats are offered on many cars the head rests are primarily as a head restraint in the event of rear impact. Most head rests are designed to have a 2 inch clearance between the rest and the occupants head so as not to interfere with head movement. This, however, provides inadequate support in a reclined position.

Head Hugger supports not only the head but also the neck from road jarring. The unique saddle shape of the Head Hugger prevents the resting head from sliding to far too either side. Head Hugger's tapered shape assures a smooth transition betwe en upper seat and the head support.

The unit can be easily installed in any car with a head rest by use of the two velcro straps which are attached to the hood on the back of the Head Hugger. The two strap attachment allows the Head Hugger to be used on either seat including those with s eat belts attached to the head rests.

A trial of the Head Hugger will convince any person of its comfort.

ID: nht94-4.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vincent Ugoletti -- Chief Engineer, Great Lakes Communications, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/7/94 FROM VINCENT A. UGOLETTI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10335)

TEXT: This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter to this office in which you stated your intention to modify a "conversion" van into a "production" van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conv ersation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial veh icle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new ve hicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requir ements of those standards when the new van was sold to you.

The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Th e standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles su ch as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assemb ly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs.

Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to th eir vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements.

There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of des ign installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standar ds listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it insta lls are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards.

You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrn

Lou Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations & Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Structure & Safety Integration
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Rd.
Warren, MI 48090-9010




Dear Mr. Carlin:

This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-5) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.

We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

March 2006
________________________________________




Background

A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.^[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.

Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.

On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".




Requests for Correction

General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:

• It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
• Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
• There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
• In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.

The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.




Discussion

At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.

We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:

The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.

We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.

• It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
• There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
• The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
• To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.




Conclusions

• The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
• Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
• The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.

ref:205
d.4/7/06





---

^[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).