ID: nht90-1.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

CODE 49-Standard 209 "Seat belt Assemblies"

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

CODE 49 Standard 210 "Seatbelt Assembly Anchorages"

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

CODE 49 Standard 571.208 "Occupant Crash Protection"

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

CODE 49 Standard S571.111 "REARVIEW MIRRORS"

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

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

CODE 49 Standard 571.202 "HEAD RESTRAINTS"

I feel I need HELP with interpertation and compliance here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enclosed:

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

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

ID: nht90-1.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 12, 1990

FROM: Johannah Bonewald -- Voskamp Motors., Office Manager

TO: Phil Gramm -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-90 To Phil Gramm and From Stephen P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 0-0-0 To John Cerisano and From Phil Gramm; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members and From W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Please find enclosed a copy of a Ford-Rent-A-Car System Bulletin that was sent to Ford dealers last week. As you can see, the bulletin concern the rental of vans to be used to transport students. We have had 15-Passenger rental vans in service for the past 15 years and probably the biggest customer we have are the schools in our area. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this regulation. This vehicle is probably one of the safest means o f transporting students. Any information you can give to me as to the reasoning behind this regulation, or information on who to contact to give us more details would be very much appreciates.

Thank you for you help.

ID: nht90-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 12, 1990

FROM: Johannah Bonewald -- Office Manager., Voskamp Motors

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Stephen P. Wood; (A35; VSA 102(14), 108(a)(1)(A), 108(b)(1)); Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members and From W.A. Jacqu es; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloy d Bentsen

TEXT:

Please find enclosed a copy of a Ford-Rent-A-Car System Bulletin that was sent to Ford dealers last week. As you can see, the bulletin concerns the rental of vans to be used to transport students. We have had a 15-Passenger Rental van in service for the past 15 years and probably the biggest customer we have are the schools in our area. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this regulation. This vehicle is probably one of the safest means of tr ansporting students. Any information you can give to me as to the reasoning behind this regulation, or information on who to contact to give us more details would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your help.

ID: nht90-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/90

FROM: RICH VAN IDERSTINE

TO: TAYLOR

TITLE: INCOMING REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-23-90 TO TILMAN SPINGLER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; INTERP. STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED TO TELEFAX DATED 1/30/90 TO RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE FROM T. SPINGLER.

TEXT: Attached is a fax from Bosch that I received last Friday through some circuitous internal NHTSA mail routing.

To help in your preparation of a letter (fax?) of interpretation, I offer the following:

Question 1. "To turn the adjusting screws of a HB2-headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal?"

S7.7.2 permits protective covers removable without the use of tools, for meeting the need for accessibility of mechanisms that allow aim inspection and adjustment for both vertical and horizontal aim.

Question 2. "A combination of HB2-headlight (low- + High-beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beam pattern will be so wide that even bulbs with extreme tolerances w ill allow to meet all photometer requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal?"

Again, S7.7.2 states that each headlamp shall be installed with a mounting and aiming mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjustment of both vertical and horizontal aim. . . . Thus, the headlamp in question must have both horizontal and vertical aiming screws for that part of the headlamp which provides the lower and upper beam. For that part of the same headlamp which is a driving beam and thus not regulated by Standard No. 108, NHTSA does not care how that is made adjustable for aiming purpo ses. Therefore the headlamp as described would not be legal if it did not have horizontal aiming screws or the equivalent mechanism for that part which provides the lower and upper beam.

Question 3. "When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule?"

The next action on the HB5 (industry trade no. 9007) is expected in May 1990, as was stated in the January 18, 1990 NHTSA-Industry Public Meeting.

Attachment

P.S. Could you have your secretary send a copy of the latest 108 over the WANG System to me?

Thanks, (Illegible Word)

ID: nht90-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUG. 11, 1989 FROM PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY, TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, ATTACHED, OCC3831

TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards w ould apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and "possibly 302" would apply to this seat.

I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulatio ns.

You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the "occupant compartment air space," which the standard defines as "the sp ace within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the "o ccupant compartment air space" turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area wher e people could and would ride, and would be considered within the "occupant compartment air space." Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistanc e requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor 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 comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repa iring motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicl e with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of this "render inoperative" provision.

Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also 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 those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: VICTOR CRISCI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM VICTOR CRISCI TO ERICA Z. JONES DATED JUNE 28, 1989 ATTACHED

TEXT: This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, 1989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light t o the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.10(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S 5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do n ot interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device do es not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that sw itches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash

(such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

ID: nht90-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: DIANA L. D. REGAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM DIANA L. REGAN ATTACHED; OCC 4152

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the saf ety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including al l necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed t o alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Sta ndard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR @ 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be a ccomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment

of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a Febr uary 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The informa tion sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/90

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH; REDBOOK A35; VSA 102[5]; PART 575.6

TEXT: This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the recent amendment to NHTSA's Consumer Information regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 575. This amendment, published on November 27, 1989, requires that vehicle Owner's Manuals contain specifie d information regarding NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i) of the regulations specifies a statement that must appear in Owner's Manuals effective September 1, 1990. In two locations within the statement, the "name of manufacturer" must be inserted. We request your opinion as to whethe r we may, consistent with the regulations, use the name "Infiniti" in these spaces, for manuals used with our new Infiniti line of vehicles.

Infiniti is a Division within Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles will be assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the parent corporation, in Japan. Vehicles sold through the Infinit i Division will be designated by the Infiniti nameplate, and we expect that consumers will identify the vehicles specifically with that name. The process is similar to that used with the Cadillac or Lincoln Divisions of General Motors Corporation or For d Motor Company, respectively.

We would provide an address and telephone number for the Infiniti Division adjacent to the required Hotline information, to facilitate consumers contacting Infiniti. This toll free number would be unique to the Infiniti Division, and calls would be a nswered by a staff separate from that of the Nissan Division. We believe that this approach would not confuse consumers and would, in fact, improve their ability to contact quickly the appropriate officials who are authorized to respond to any questions on defect or compliance matters concerning Infiniti models.

We would greatly appreciate your earliest possible response on this matter, so that we can arrange our printing schedules to meet the September 1 effective date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht90-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1990

FROM: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TO: U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO ANTHONY P. GREENISH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; PART 591) TEXT:

I am presently contemplating purchasing a car in Europe and importing it when I return to the United States in July 1990. The two models I have in mind are:

1. The BMW model 324 d Diesel

2. The Honda model Accord 1.6 Ix

Any information you can provide as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards would be very welcome.

ID: nht90-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1990

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJITA, OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC. AND LETTER DA TED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD.213]

TEXT: Hartley Associates, Inc. is a woman-owned small business enterprise (WBE), certified by the State of New York, which is located in your Congressional District at 48 Heritage Court, Cheektowaga, NY 14225. The corporation was formed in 1986 for the purpos e of performing research, development, testing and evaluation in the field of automotive transportation safety and to provide consulting services to manufacturers of automotive restraint devices, both for children and adults.

In July 1989, Hartley Associates, Inc. was retained by Century Products Co., 9600 Valley View Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 for consulting services. Century Products Co. had recently developed an infant automotive restraint system equipped with a canopy s un visor (Model 580) and their concern was whether or not this design would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraints. We were requested to determine the FMVSS 213 requirements relevant to s un visors, perform whatever tests were deemed necessary and provide documentation ensuring that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213.

Subsequently, we received two interpretations of FMVSS 213 regarding the use of sun visors which had been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Chief Counsel (Mr. Dan Wilinsky, 12-31-86 and Mr. Bruce Smith, 6/4/8 7). Both of these interpretations stated that a sun visor attached to an infant restraint system must comply with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. Two dynamic sled tests were performed according to the requirements of FMVSS 213 in August of 1989. The resul ts of these tests showed that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2.

On August 22, 1989, Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel was requested to issue an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. A informed me that a meeting between NHTSA and Hartl ey Associates, Inc. was not necessary and that she would issue a letter of interpretation based on the information and test results provided by Hartley Associates, Inc.. During this seven month period, I have contacted Ms. Fujita five times by phone and once in person. She has informed me that the letter of interpretation was issued shortly after receipt of our letter but has been 'held up' by the approval process and she cannot anticipate a date for issuance.

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance you can provide in expediting this letter of interpretation. The lack of timeliness of the receipt of this interpretation is having a negative impact on the reputation of Hartley Associates, Inc. to provide a timely response to the requests of a customer.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313 of by telefax at (716) 897-0515.