ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mayer D. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG Porschestrasse 42 Stuttgart-Zuffenheusen Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

Your letter of June 5, 1984, to Mr. Jettner was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Porsche may use a trilingual marking on glass-plastic glazing. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.1.2.5(b) of Standard No. 205 requires manufacturers of glass-plastic glazing to permanently and indelibly mark the lower center of such glazing with the words, "Glass Plastic Material -See Owner's Manual For Care Instructions". The letter must be not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high. You ask whether the optional marking permitted may be trilingual. As long as the English marking conforms to the requirements of section 5.l.2.5(b), there is no prohibition in the standard to using a trilingual warning.

I note that the pictures you enclosed with your letter appear to show a decal with the language required to meet the standard. As discussed in the preamble to the glass-plastic glazing final rule, the agency added section 5.1.2.5(b) of the standard to allow manufacturers to etch or otherwise permanently and indelibly mark the message on the glazing. Please note that the use of a plastic decal which could be removed or become illegible would not be deemed "permanent and indelible" by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Edward Jettber Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA

ESV-My-re Weissach, June 5, 1984

Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Jettner:

In February 1984 (Federal Register Vol. 49; No. 37; Pages 6732/6735 of February 23, 1984) Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials, was amended to allow the use of glass-plastic glazing as windshields and windows in motor vehicles.

In relation with this amendment permission was given to affix a label on the window in order to give vehicle owner's cleaning instructions, S 5.1.2.5(b).

The text must be in letters not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high, with the following words:

"GLASS PLASTIC MATERIAL - SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR CARE INSTRUCTIONS."

We are now asking for permission to add the corresponding cleaning instructions in German and French to this label.

The trilingual label would assure that the content of the instruction will be understood by the customers in most of the countries our vehicles are sold to, without the disadvantage of using different labels in production.

A uniform label would also prevent errors in the assignment of the labels to the different countries.

For better understanding we enclosed pictures showing the requested labels on our vehicles '911' and '928'.

Altogether, the dimensions of the label are small enough that the label can be affixed on the area underneath the windshield wipers (windshield wipers in resting position).

An early favorable answer of our request would be greatly appreciated as we intent to use the new windshields, which have a layer of polyurethan on the inner surface, on our new vehicles (1985).

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

"INSERT"

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass Suite 1410 Number Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

This responds to your April 4, 1984 letter to the Secretary of Transportation. In that letter, you requested information on Federal requirements applicable to a commercial operation involving the placement of gasoline engines in used diesel automobiles.

The Department of Transportation is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy standards programs. No fuel ecomony requirements would apply to the operation you describe since those requirements apply to new vehicles only. In the safety area, the only requirement which might apply to such an operation would be 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That provision prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or private repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Whether the commercial venture you describe in your letter violates the statutory provision would depend upon whether the venture could be characterized as a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or private repair business and whether the engine substitution process would result in a noncompliance with one of our standards. Based on the information provided in your letter, we cannot definitively answer either question.

There may be issues involving automotive emissions standards which apply to an operation of the sort you describe. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to that aspect of your question.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Secretary of Transportation U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

This letter will advise you that I represent several individuals in the State of Pennsylvania who have undertaken an enterprise involving used automobiles.

They are contemplating the purchase of large numbers of vehicles that were designed to operate with diesel fuel. Their intention is to remove the diesel engine from each vehicle and to substitute an engine which used regular fuel exclusively. Subsequent to this operation they intend to advertise these vehicles for sale.

We are aware of the fact that each of the vehicles originally bears the serial number as a diesel engine.

Our question is "Are there any Federal statutes or regulations making such an operation unlawful in any way, and is it fitting and proper to substitute the regular engines in the bodies of these vehicles which were formerly diesel operated?"

I would appreciate it very much if you would reply to this inquiry promptly since we wish to conform properly to the rules and regulations.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Very truly yours, HERBERT JEROME BASS

ID: 1984-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Forrest L. Bettis, Project Director, Traders International

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Approval for automotive Testing of Two Non-Conforming Vehicles

Reference: 22157-30.4.84

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are an automotive marketing research firm located in the Los Angeles area. Recently, we were contracted by a Japanese auto manufacturer to test U.S. acceptance of their new car. The importation is for Daihatsu Motor Co., manufacturer not presently selling vehicles in the U.S.

We urgently need the approval of NHTSA to import these vehicles for testing. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation, emissions testing and marketing evaluations. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan.

Enclosed is a letter from Daihatsu Motor Company requesting a waiver from the California Air Resources Board and listing specs of vehicles.

We are under severe time constraints. These cars are scheduled to arrive in San Pedro/Long Beach no later than July 25. If possible, your approval for importation and testing would be appreciated prior to July 2O, 1984.

If you need any additional information, call us collect (818)768-8573.

Sincerely,

Forrest L. Bettis Project Director

Mr. Forrest L. Bettis Project Director Traders International 10553 Alskog St.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Dear Mr. Bettis:

This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1984, asking for the agency's "approval for importation and testing" of two small Japanese cars.

No "approval" is necessary for importation for the purposes you specify. Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a motor vehicle which does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards may nonetheless be imported for purposes of test or experiment. If the vehicle is to be operated on the public roads, it may be so tested for a period of up to one year after importation, provided that a statement is attached to the entry form giving the purpose of the test or experiment, the estimated amount of time that the vehicle will spend on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of it at the end of the test period. The letter to the California Air Resources Board, which you attached, appears sufficient for this purpose.

The entry form I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is Form HS-7 which is required to be executed when the vehicles enter the country. The proper declaration to check for purposes of test and experiment is Box 7.

Should your client require more than one year's evaluation, you may ask the agency for an additional year, and later, a third year if required.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. No. 47041 Date July 4, 1984

Mr. K.D. Drachand, Chief Mobile Source Division California Air Resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 U.S.A.

RE : Application for two experimental permits

We are a Japanese automobile manufacturing company currently investigating the introduction of a new car to the U.S. market. To test our product in the U.S., we must import two nonconforming vehicles. These are different from the vehicles which marketing department of our company applied on May 23. Now, we need the experimental permits to operate these vehicles on public roadways in California. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation and marketing evaluations.

Vehicle specs are as follows :

Manufacturer : Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd. Vehicle models : 1. Daihatsu Charade 2 door (G11 Micro-mini FF passenger car) 2. Daihatsu Rocky (F7OLV Wagon type 4x4) Length : 3,550 mm 3,715 mm Width : 1,550 mm 1,580 mm Height : 1,395 mm 1,840 mm Weight : 690 kg 1,365 kg Dates : July 24 - Oct. 24 VIN numbers : Charade 2 door JDA 000G1100737951 Rocky JDA 000F7000600408

These two cars will be shipped from Kobe. Japan to Los Angeles, California. In California, they will be evaluated and test driven by several people. After this test, they will undergo a series of additional tests. Within one year of importation, these vehicles will be returned to Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Tetsuo Iwakura; Project Manager Product Planning Dept. Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd.

ID: 1984-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southwest Research Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer, Senior Research Scientist Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78284

Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This responds to your letter dated May 15, 1984, regarding the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for compliance testing of the "air over hydraulic" braking system used on certain Nissan heavy duty trucks.

After examining the information provided in your letter and the enclosed diagram of the air over hydraulic braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking pressure from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 1O5a (now, Standard No. 1O5), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17917. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You ask whether the air chamber volumes at the "air booster," as it appears in your diagram, could be used in calculating the required air service reservoir capacity or in determining reaction time. This agency agrees that, if the brake actuation to the wheels is hydraulic, then the requirements of Standard No. 121 for air service reservoir capacity and brake application and release timing can be measured at the "air booster" for compliance testing. When a heavy duty truck is equipped with an air over hydraulic brake system, the air booster can be considered the equivalent of the air brake chamber in Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

15 May 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to examine heavy duty trucks produced by Nissan Diesel Motor Co., Ltd. in order to determine compliance with United States standards.

These trucks use a "air-over hydraulic" brake system and there is some question as to the appropriate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). We are, therefore, requesting a decision from NHTSA as to whether FMVSS standard 105 or FMVSS standard 121 is applicable to these trucks.

The following information may help in this decision:

o The driver uses a treadle valve to operate and control the service brakes.

o Compressed air is used from the treadle valve to the "air booster" and hydraulic brake fluid is used from the "air booster" to the service brakes.

o No hydraulic or mechanical means is used to transmit force from the drivers control to the "air booster" and no air is used to supply actuating force at the individual wheels.

o A complete loss of air pressure causes a complete loss of braking from the service brake system, rather than a reduced capability as would be normal with a "brake power assist unit" or a "brake power unit".

o "Air brake chambers," as such, are not used since brake actuation at the wheels is hydraulic. The air chamber volumes at the "air booster" could possibly be used in calculating required aiu service reservoir capacity or determining reaction time.

A diagram of the braking system is included with this letter as a aid in understanding the system.

If I can provide further information or answer questions for you, please call (512) 684-5111, extension 3017.

Sincerely,

Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Systems Department of Engine and Vehicle Research Engines, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division

LFK/dg Attachment

INSERT GRAPHS

ID: 1984-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Crail Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 17185 Louisville, Kentucky 40217

Dear Mr. Crail:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of the testing requirements of paragraphs S5-3-3 and S5-3-4 of Federa1 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You state that you have always tested all of your trailers with the 50-cubic-inch test reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, downstream of the trailer test rig and the trailer. This is the correct testing method, because the purpose of the 50-cubic- inch test reservoir is to represent the volume of lines in the following vehicle.

You also state that a customer suggests that the correct reservoir connection is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This location of the reservoir in front of the trailer would indeed negate the purpose of the test requirement, because in this position the reservoir could not simulate the volume of lines in the trailing vehicle. Your interpretation, not the customer's, is correct for testing vehicles equipped with air brake systems for compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: 49CFR 571.121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Sir:

This letter is to seek clarification on sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These require that on a vehicle designed to tow another vehicle equipped with air brakes, meet brake actuation and release time requirements with a 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the control line coupling. We have always tested all of our trailers with the 50 cubic inch reservoir connected to the rear of the trailer, that is downstream of both the trailer test rig and the trailer.

A customer insists that the proper location for the 50 cubic inch reservoir is between the trailer test rig and the control coupling on the front of the trailer. This, of course, negates the whole reason for placing the 50 cubic inch reservoir on the control coupling, which is to simulate the towed vehicle.

Since the standard is not clear as to where the 50 cubic inch reservoir is connected, we are requesting an interpretation as to the proper control coupling to which it should be connected.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

RJC/maf

ID: 1984-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your June 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Section 5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 217 provides manufacturers with three options with which they may meet the unobstructed openings requirements for buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You asked for our confirmation of your interpretation that windows and doors on these vehicles which meet the specifications of options (b) and (c) of section 5.2.2 have no requirements as to emergency exit release, extension, and identification. As discussed below, windows and doors installed in compliance with section 5.2.2 in a bus other than a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must comply with the requirements of section 5.3 and 5.4 of the standard. They do not have to comply with the requirements of S5.5 unless specially-installed emergency exits, such as push-out windows, are used.

Section 5.3 specifies emergency exit release requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Similarly, section 5.4 specifies emergency exit extension requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Since section 5.2.3 only specifies emergency exit requirements for school buses, the windows and doors on buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 or less must comply with Sections 5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. The Standard permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements.

You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 217 does not require standard roll-down windows and doors on these vehicles to be labeled as emergency exits. The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially- installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the emergency exit requirements may be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Standard roll-down windows generally meet these specifications. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. However, section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NHTSA NOA-30:D.Hom:p11:69511:7/6/84:PR: NOA-30:Subj/Chron Concurrence: NRM; NEF Interps: Redbook (3) Std. 217 NRM-01:Info NEF-01:Info OCC 765

June 14, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release Dear Mr. Berndt:

Section S5.2.2, "Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.", of the subject standard states the following:

Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing: (a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 without using remote controls or central power systems; (b) Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches; or (c) Doors

Option (a) specifies devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Options (b) and (c) make no reference to the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Based on this it is our understanding that options (b) windows . . . and (c) doors, do not have to meet the requirements of Sections S5.3 through S5.4 dealing with emergency exit release, extension, and identification.

In other words, on a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less built on a Commercial cutaway van chassis, large windows meeting S5.2.2 (b) and/or the driver's door provided with the chassis and the entrance door, can be used to meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2 without regard to the requirements of S5.3, S5.4, or S5.5.

We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

fvc c: FMVSS 217 File

ID: 1984-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York, N.Y. 10166

Dear Ms. Oba:

This responds to your letter regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on brake systems applicable to a diesel truck equipped with an "air over hydraulic" brake system.

After examining your letter and the enclosed diagram of the braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking force from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydaulic or mechanical components. A failure in air pressure would result in loss of braking force. Therefore, this brake system falls within the definition of hair brake system" in paragraph S4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 105a (now, Standard No. 105), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17971. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck braking system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

January 26, 1984 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to request clarification regarding F.M.V.S.S. classification of brake systems. In a new model of diesel truck which we intend to import to the United States, we use a system called the "air over hydraulic" brake system. It is rarely used in America, and we are unsure whether it should fit within the definition of a hydraulic brake or an air brake, as it contains elements of both designs.

I am enclosing a simple diagram for your reference. In it, the blue line represents air, the red, fluid. As you can see, pressure exerted by the driver is carried by air to the hydraulic air serve. From there,force is then transmitted by fluid to the wheel brakes. The descriptions of brake systems in F.M.V.S.S. 105 (hydraulic) and 121 (air) define each category according to the medium transmitting force from the service brake control to the brake itself. If the unit which uses air is considered only as a form of power assistance, the air-over system should be included in the hydraulic brake definition.

However, if the air system from the pedal to the hydraulic servo is considered as an integral part of the brake and of equal value, then it would not be merely an assist to the hydraulic.

We would like to know into which category our brake system should fall. If my explanations or diagram are incomplete or unsatisfactory in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification.

Sincerely yours, Margaret Moore Oba Encl:

ID: 1984-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BoPeep Nursery Products Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen Sher President BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario May 1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Sher:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of Standard No. 213 apply to a system which is designed for use solely by children who weigh more than 50 pounds and is so labeled. Standard No. 213 does not apply to devices intended solely to restrain children who weigh more than 50 pounds.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds" (emphasis added). If your product is designed solely for use by children who weigh more than 50 pounds, it would not be a "child restraint" as that term is defined in Standard No. 213, and so would not be subject to the requirements of the Standard.

You should be aware of the requirements of sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414), which specify that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. This could become relevant to the sale of your product in several ways. For example, if the seating system were marketed and sold in such a way that it would be likely to be often used by children under 50 pounds, and were not certified as complying with Standard No. 213, it might well be found to contain a safety-related defect.

To prevent such unintended usage, I strongly recommend that the device be clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by this system. I would further recommend that your marketing efforts and point of sale materials highlight the size and age of child which your system is designed to restrain.

Another potential safety-related defect finding which could be made would occur if testing showed that children of the age and size intended to use your seating system were safer using a 3- point belt alone than the seating system with a 3-point belt. To ensure that this finding is not made, I would recommend some testing or engineering analysis by your company to show that your seating system when used with the 3-point belt system is at least as safe for use by its intended occupants as a standard 3-point belt would be when used alone.

Should you have any further questions or need any further information in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 25, 1984.

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL Room #5219 400 - 7th Street S. W. Washington, DC USA 20590

Attention: Mr. Stephen Kretzke

Dear Mr. Kretzke:

During our conversation of June 20th we had mentioned our need for an interpretation on Section S4 of FMVSS 213 and how our initial inquiry was directed through Calspan.

We have enclosed a copy of Calspan findings for your attention and are requesting confirmation of its contents.

We are also concerned that our point of sale material can highlight that our seat can be used for children 3 years of age and up and for children who are over 50 lbs.

We request your prompt reply to this inquiry as we are looking forward to entering the American market quite soon.

Yours Truly,

BO-PEEP NURSERY PRODUCTS LIMITED

Stephen Sher President

SS:sb Encl.

June 15, 1984

Mr. Stephen Shir BoPeep Nursery Products, Ltd. 101 Portland Street Toronto, Ontario M8Y1B1 CANADA

Dear Mr. Shir:

This letter is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) to your new booster seat, the Shuttle Seat, designed for children over 50 pounds in weight.

Section S4 of FMVSS 213 defines child restraint systems which must meet the specified requirements as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." On June 15, 1984, I received a verbal interpretation of Section S4 from the Department of Transportation's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in conjunction with the Office of Chief Counsel, that child restraint systems designed and labelled for use by children over 50 pounds are exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Based upon the above interpretations and our evaluation of your booster seat, it is our opinion that, if the device is labelled for use only by children over 50 pounds that is is exempt from the requirements of FMVSS 213.

I hope this information is of use to you. Please feel free to call me with any further questions.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Walsh, Head Biomechanical Sciences Section Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department

Barbara J. Kelleher Staff Associate Transportation Research/ Physical Sciences Department kd

ID: 1984-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche -- Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking about Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether it is permissible to limit activation of the brake system indicator lamp for purposes of checking the indicator lamp function to six seconds.

The answer to your question is yes. I have enclosed a copy of a letter addressed to Fiat, dated February 7, 1975, which discusses this issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock -- NHTSA

ESVG/My-re Weissach, June 19, 1984

Request for Clarification

Ref: FMVSS 571.105, S 5.3

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

The above-mentioned FMVSS also requires the possibility for the driver of a motor vehicle to check the brake system indicator lamp (S.5.3.2) before he or she starts the car.

The two alternatives mentioned are:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either

a) when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" (run) position when the engine is not running, or

b) when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" (run) and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Point S 5.3.3 also requests:

Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S 5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position, whether or not the engine is running.

Assuming there is a defect in the brake system, as specified in S 5.3.1 a), b) or c), and the driver turns the ignition switch to the "on" position and the engine is not running, there will be no definite indication before starting the engine that there is a defect, since the indicator lamp is also activated to control the function of the lamp itself.

This means, the indicator lamp can be activated for two reasons, but without making the distinction between the dangerous situation as specified in S 5.3.3 and the more harmless situation specified in S 5.3.2.

We would now like to eliminate this uncertainty by limiting the activation of the lamp (specified in S 5.3.2) to 6 seconds, i.e. if the brake system is working properly the indicator lamp will dim after 6 seconds while it will remain activated if there is a malfunction in the brake system.

This improvement could be achieved by combining the brake system indicator lamps with the time-limit relay of the 'Fasten Seat Belts'-lamp which is activated for 4 - 8 seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or the "start" position (S 7.3 FMVSS 208).

We would now like to know if this method of controlling the function of the brake indicator lamp complies with the requirements in S 5.3.2 of FMVSS 105?

An early favorable answer would be greatly appreciated as we intend to use this method in a 1985-model in connection with the introduction of a modified instrument panel.

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG z. Hd. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40

7251 Weissach

WEST GERMANY