ID: nht93-8.30

DATE: November 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack McIntyre -- Vice President, Tie Tech Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/15/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack and (OCC-9123) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position...." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-6.19

DATE: 01/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.W. KENNEBECK -- EMISSIONS, SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht74-4.41

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Corner Sterling & Machell Avenues

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to "U.S. Bureau of Safety" expressing your view that "the automobile industry should . . . have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance."

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition "off" position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENC.

December 11, 1973

Dr. Irvin Jacobs, M.D.

The circumstance and comment in your letter of November 21, 1973, regarding automatic window closing operation is noted. The matter is deemed to be in the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, we are forwarding your letter with a copy of this acknowledgement to DOT for their attention and an appropriate reply.

JOHN J. KLOCKO Chief, Materials Handling Technology Center

cc: FMSMUSS-118 U.S. Dept. of Transportation

November 21, 1973

U. S. Bureau of Safety Washington D. C.

Gentlemen:

Recently one of our young patients was brought in after having his head caught in the window of a car door after the automatic window closing operation had been started. Fortunately, this was not a serious accident; however, it could have been.

It seems the automobile industry should be prevailed upon to have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the window meets any resistance.

Sincerely,

IRVIN JACOBS, M.D.

ID: nht76-5.12

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anshelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1976, question whether the windows of "recreational vehicles" qualify as "secondary means of egress" and what Federal requirements would apply to them if they do so qualify.

The only Federal requirement for the provision of emergency exists apply to buses (Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217 (copy enclosed)). "Bus" is defined by our regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 571.3). Thus, Standard No. 217 would apply to the vehicle you describe if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons (including the driver) while the vehicle is in motion.

The standard does not use the term "secondary means of egress" but specifies a minimum area of unobstructed opening that may be provided by several means (e.g., emergency door, "push-out window").

SINCERELY,

ANSCHELEWITZ BARR ANSEL & BONELLO

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Motor Vehicle Program

Att: Conrad Cooke

Re: Feimster v. Concord Motor Homes Our file #14247

Pursuant to Mr. Williams' telephone conversation with this office on 7 September 1976, he informed me that you have conducted an investigation relative to recreational vehicles having secondary means of egress.

Concord Motor Homes, the defendant in the above-captioned matter, alleges that the windows of their recreational vehicle quali as secondary means of egress in that one can break the tempered glass and climb out. The windows involved in this accident were not the "pop-out" type.

I do not agree with Concord Motor Homes' assumption that these windows qualify as a secondary means of egress.

I would appreciate it if you would forward to me any information you may have with regard to whether or not windows of recreational vehicles qualify as secondary means of egress, and, if so, the standards said windows must comply with as a secondary means of egress. If there is a charge for this information, please advise and I will forward you a check at once.

Thank you very much.

Richard B. Ansell

ID: nht79-3.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Delgado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

Dear Mr. Delgado:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Federal and State laws applicable to the manufacture of van seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats as installed in vehicles, including vans, but is not applicable to seats as individual pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat manufacturer, would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 207. However, under section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of vehicle seats would be responsible for any safety related defects in his products and would be required to notify owners and remedy the defects.

I am enclosinq a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 for your information, as well as an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of all our standards and regulations. You will have to contact the individual States in which you are interested to find out if there are any State or local laws applicable to your business.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

August 20, 1979

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentleman:

I am planning to start my own business, manufacturing van seats. I would appreciate if you can send me federal and state laws and regulations conserning the safety for van seats.

Please mail to:

Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Blvd. Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lourdes M. Delgado

LMD/tr

ID: nht95-6.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. 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.

ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. 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.

ID: 19623.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153-8636
Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter concerning the testing of reflectors of replaceable lens headlamps for chemical and corrosion resistance. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Under the test procedure established by S8.10.1(c), after test fluids are applied to headlamp reflectors, the reflectors "shall be wiped clean with a soft cotton cloth . . . ." You remark that the force applied to the reflector during cleaning is not specified, noting that if Stanley wipes the reflector "so gently that the surface would not be damaged, the headlamp will meet the requirements prescribed in S7.4(h)(2)," but, "on the other hand, if we wipe the reflector without any carefulness, the surface might be damaged." In your opinion, this means that "some kind of attention is needed to meet the requirement of S7.4(h)(2)." You ask "if such kind of attention is permitted under S8.10.1(c)."

S5.8.11 of Standard No. 108 requires that a replacement lens for a replaceable lens headlamp must be provided with a replacement seal in a package "that includes instructions for the removal and replacement of the lens, the cleaning of the reflector, and the sealing of the replacement lens to the reflector assembly." Although you reference only the chemical resistance test of S8.10.1(c), we note that the corrosion test contains a specific requirement that "the reflector shall be cleaned according to the instructions supplied with the headlamp manufacturer's replacement lens" (S8.10.2(b)). The instructions for the cleaning of the reflector may specify the force recommended to be applied for this operation.

If the instructions do not specify the force needed to wipe the reflector clean, we would interpret the test procedure as encompassing the range of force levels that technicians would reasonably employ to perform the required task. Thus, in a compliance test where instructions are silent as to the force to be used, no special care would be taken to use the minimum possible force, nor would the technician deliberately use excessive force.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.9/29/99

ID: 15215.wkm

Mr. Carlos Fracaroli
Pirelli
Av. Alexandre de Gusmâo
487-09110-900
Santo André, SP Brasil

Dear Mr. Fracaroli:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter in which you inquired about tolerances in the ambient temperature requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119), and 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. You stated that you found no such tolerances in the standards and asked how you should calibrate your laboratory if none exist, since ambient temperatures can oscillate 5 degrees Fahrenheit (F).

You are correct that the above standards do not provide for tolerances with respect to the testing temperatures of tires. All of our FMVSSs specify minimum performance requirements. Thus, manufacturers must design and build the products to meet or exceed the specified performance. Since increased temperature is generally detrimental to tire performance, manufacturers must ensure that each tire meets the required performance at the temperature specified in the standard, in this case, 95 degrees F. Given the variability in laboratory equipment as you correctly noted, however, the agency allows an ambient temperature tolerance in our compliance testing of +0F-10F. The +0F ensures that the actual temperature will never oscillate above 95F. That upper limit ensures that we do not exceed the requirements of the standard, which would invalidate the test. For your information, please find enclosed extracts from this agency's Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing and Data Reporting, DOT publication No. TP-119-04, May, 1988, applicable to FMVSS No. 119, and Laboratory Procedures for Tire Temperature Resistance Testing, DOT publication No. TP-UTQG-H-01, May 25, 1979, applicable to the UTQGS. Both publications are available from this agency, ATTN: NAD-40.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by Fax at 011-202- 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:119#575
d.10/8/97