ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht90-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Normand Laurendeau, Esq. -- Guy And Gilbert

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEREL M. SACHS (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2); ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M. SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8/4/86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6 /10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Laurendeau:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your client, who distributes auto glass parts in Canada. You had two questions regarding your client's status as an "intermediate" in the motor vehicle industry.

Before I address your specific questions, I believe some background information about this agency may be of assistance to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and al so investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes each of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the Safety Act. The information sheet also explains how a company offering an item of mot or vehicle equipment for importation into the United States must designate an agent within this country for service of process.

Your letter describes your client as "one of the major distributors of auto glass parts in all of Canada." Your letter states that your client's customers demand that your client "certifies all glasses shipped with D.O.T. number AS1 or AS2 for domestic a nd export purposes in all countries." I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter.

Your first question was whether your client, as a distributor of automotive safety glass, needs a D.O.T. number to operate in the United States. The answer to this question depends on what role your client has in the process that results in glazing bein g sold to the customer.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR $ 571.205) which specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and d istributors of glazing materials.

The marking and certification requirements differ, depending upon whether your client is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer or distributor. A "prime glazing material manufacturer" is defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as " one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your client performs any of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. S6.1 requires every prim e glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways". Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26). S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper by adding to the mark required by S6.1 the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by this agency. S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehi cles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

Assuming that your client would not be considered a "prime glazing material manufacturer," but is simply a distributor, it would not need to be assigned a DOT number pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205. In your letter, however, you incorrectly identifi ed the codes AS1 and AS2 as DOT numbers. Those codes are required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26. As explained below, your client may be required to add such markings to glazing materials, even if your client is only considered a distribu tor for the purposes of Standard No. 205.

Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing th at are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with section 114 of the Safety Act (S6.5).

Your second question asked about the potential liability of a distributor for the certification of automotive safety glazing for importation into the United States.

If your client is required to certify glazing it distributes pursuant to the provisions in either S6.2, S6.3, or S6.5 of Standard No. 205, the failure to so certify would be a violation of the standard. Section

108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any appl icable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

Thus, if your client is required by Standard No. 205 to certify some glazing it distributes, the failure to make such a certification would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. Even if your client is not required to certify the glaz ing it distributes pursuant to Standard No. 205, section 114 of the Safety Act requires every distributor of motor vehicle equipment (such as glazing) to furnish a certification. Section 114 provides: Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor veh icle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment by such . . . distributor the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable safety stand ards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) provides that any violations of section 108 subject the violator to a civil penalty of not to exceed $ 1,000 for each such violation, up to a maximum penalty of $ 800,000.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?

ID: nht87-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BRUCE W. SMITH -- PRESIDENT UNIT CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/12/87 TO JONES; FROM BRUCE W. SMITH

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency's "recommendation" on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety stan dard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor veh icle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.

This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperat ive ... 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 ..."

There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints in compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of St andard No. 213 specifies: "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302." I have also enclosed a copy of

2 Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injur ies during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair busi ness installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108.

Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flamma bility resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative.

Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 141 1-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of th e defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to hear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight year s before the notification campaign.

I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

3

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

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Andrew G. Baird -- Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/15/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to W. Alex Cantrell (Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew G. Baird, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P.O. Box 968 North Platte, NE 69101

This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automatic starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control Systems, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your l etter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they do not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously w arned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.

I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluate the safety of your device.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY NHTSA 07-87 March 13, 1987 Contact: Barry McCahill Tel.: (202) 366-955)

SAFETY AGENCY WARMS MOTORISTS TO AVOID LONG ENGINE WARM-UPS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today cautioned motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period could lead to a fire.

The safety agency explained that when an engine is cold, most vehicles equipped with a carburetor will idle fast while the choke is on until the operator depresses the accelerator pedal to return the idle to normal. If the operator neglects to do this, o r is away from the vehicle, the engine may operate too long with the choke on, the catalytic converter could overheat and a fire could result. Due to vehicle differences, NHTSA suggests that drivers should consult their owner's manual to determine how lo ng the manufacturer advises that an engine can be idled safely.

"Fortunately, these fires are rare events," according to NHTSA Administrator Diane K. Steed. "But incidents have been reported to us, typically when a car is left idling and the operator goes back into the house while it warms up. Under no circumstances, even in warm weather, should a car be left unattended with the engine running."

Steed urged motorists to follow carefully the manufacturer's warm-up procedure. In addition, these safety precautions should be followed:

o The engine should not be running while someone is clearing the windshield or windows of frost, snow or dew.

o If, after a brief warm-up, the vehicle hesitates or stalls, have it serviced rather than opting for a longer warm-up period.

o Before leaving any vehicle, turn off the ignition and set the parking brake. If the vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission also, make sure the gear selector is in the "park" position.

Motorists who experience a fire associated with engine warm-up, or any other safety-related motor vehicle problem, are urged to call NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline on (800) 424-9393.

December 15, 1968

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway & Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th, S.W. Washington' D.C. 20590 NOA-30

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed a diagram and explanation of a Remote Automatic Starting System for motor vehicles. Please review and notify me if there are any problems with this system under Federal Regulations or Statutes.

I have spoken to Mr. Kenneth Rutland of N.H.T.S.A. about this device and he referred me to your office. From our conversation I feel that he will probably do the review of the system.

If you have any questions, please contact either myself or the inventor, Mr. Dale Gleason at 308-532-8466.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ANDREW G. BAIRD, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation

/mjh Encl. cc. Dale Gleason Rex Martin, NE Tech. Assistance Center

REMOTE FREQUENCY CENTER, Similar to a Garage Door Opener

The Signal receiver activates a number one relay, and as soon as that is activated it puts juice to the ignition side of the coil or the electronic module, in case of electronic ignition. . . . Also supplies power to an electric switch that is closed unt il the rpm reaches 500 rpm. The juice then goes to a timer, starts a timer sequence that activates the glow plugs for 30 sec., and after 30 sec. it activates a number 3 relay, which throws juice to the starter solonoid and also to a throttle solonoid. Th e throttle solonoid cracks the throttle open one-third throttle and lets the automatic choke close. . . . . Same time we're crankin' the engine. As soon as the engine starts, the rpm reaches 500 rpm the electric switch closes, shutin' off the power to th e timer, which sets off power to the starter solonoid and throttle lever. The throttle goes back into normal position of high-idle and choke that's already on the car. In case of a No-start the timer will activate starter for 15 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, and then the whole cycle will start over. . . . . glow plugs, starter & throttle lever.

We have a master toggle switch to are the number 1 relay, which is turned on after you park your car that arms the number 1 relay, and when you hit your remote button in the morning, you can start the machine from inside the house, or wherever you want t o be.

We are going to hook it up on the neutral side of the safety switch so the unit would have to be in Park or Neutral before it would activate the starter.

Until the key is in place and release the steering column the car cannot be placed in gear. The system does not bypass the locking mechanism.

What we're doin' is starting the car, defrosting the windows , warming the engine up, and stop some people from driving while looking through a little three inch hole cuz they're too lazy to scrape the windows! A safety precaution. Also precludes cold en gine stalls.

The car must be "in tune", because if you have a car that you have to go out there an pump the throttle, this is not going to work... and it will not work if the car is sittin' out in 20o below 0 weather either, unless the car is well "in-tune". But we a re not bypassing any neutral safety switches, and will absolutely NOT start the car, if the car is in gear! At this time it is for automatic transmissions only. . . .We have not figured out a way to put it on a standard transmission that could accidently be started in gear. All the automatics do have a neutral safety switch.

ID: nht87-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takashi Shimoda -- Chief of Quality Assurance Section, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. 1118, Sazuchi, Besso-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

This responds to your letter to our office asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

In your letter, you explain that your company plans to export brake hose assemblies to the United States that are made of resin and other materials. You first ask whether Standard No. 106 applies "equally" to all brake hoses and assemblies regardless of the materials used in their manufacture. Your understanding is correct. Brake hoses and brake hose assemblies may be made from any material as long as they can meet all applicable performance requirements of the standard.

Your second question concerns the standard's whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 and the whip resistance test of S6.3, You ask for confirmation that cracks in hose specimen are acceptable under S5.3.3 provided that there is no leakage from the hose assembly. Your understanding is correct. S5.3.3 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours (S6.3)." The standard defines "rupture" as "any failure that results in separation of a brake hose from its end fitting or in leakage." The determining factor for the whip resistance requirement is thus the pressure maintained by the system. If there is no pressure loss in the system, the brake hose assembly meets S5.3.3, regardless of the presence of cracks in the hose specimen. Please note, however, that although cracks in themselves do not constitute a failure of S5.3.3, the development of cracks caused by exposure to ozone is important for the ozone resistance requirement of S5.3.10.

Since you are planning to import your products into the United States, I am enclosing copies to two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products into this country.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(procedural rules 49 CFR Part 566 and Part 551) omitted

Dear Sir:

Re: Inquiry on FMVSS No. 106 - Brake Hose

We are a manufacturer of brake hoses, and are registered at NHTSA with a maker identification code "NCRN".

Now, we are planning to export to the U.S. brake hose assemblies made of resin which are individually built into motor cycles.

We are aware that the brake hose assemblies are subject to control under FMVSS No. 106.

In this connection, we ask you a few questions on interpretations of FMVSS No. 106.

Question 1. FMVSS No. 106 provides for no regulations on the materials used. We interpret it to equally apply, whether the material is rubber or resin. Is this understanding justifiable?

For the inner tubes and outer covers of the brake hoses we are now manufacturing, we are using rubber.

But under a future plan, we schedule to use nylon for the inner tubes, and thermoplastic polyester resin for the outer covers.

Question 2. On whip resistance:

The standard sets forth the requirement s follows;

A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture, when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.

In this test, the time elapsed before a hose assembly, while being tested, has ruptured, causing water inside to leak out, is recorded, to make the judgment on its whip resistance.

If even when cracks have developed which have not lead to leakage from the hose which is under testing, the hose shows no evidence of leakage, while the tester is running, then, we judge this hose acceptable. Is this judgment right?

Thanking you for your early answer.

Very sincerely yours,

Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

ID: nht87-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Albert Schwarz -- Senior engineer, Imperial Clevite Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/3/84 letter from Frank Berndt to Terry E. Teeter (Std. 106)

TEXT:

Mr. Albert Schwarz Senior Engineer, Product Development Imperial Clevite Inc. Imperial Eastman Division 6300 W. Howard Street Chicago, IL 60648-3492

This responds to your January 12, 1987 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You ask whether the standard applies to flexible conduits (i.e., hoses and plastic tubing) used to trans mit air pressure to accessories such as horns and windshield wipers. The answer to your question is yes, if a failure of such a conduit result; in a loss of air pressure in the brake system.

On August 3, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation of Standard No. 106 to Mr. Terry Teeter of the Eaton Corporation, who asked the same question you did about the applicability of the standard to conduits used for accessories. Our letter explains that fle xible hoses (and tubing) connected to accessories are "brake hoses" and subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the air pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes--i.e., a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressur e in the brake system. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Teeter for your information.

I understand that Ms. Hom of my staff sent you a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA on April 17, 1986, which terminated rulemaking on whether the air brake hose tensile requirement of Standard No. 106 should be reduced for hoses typically used for accessories. NHTSA decided to terminate rulemaking because the agency believed that it would be in the interest of safety for the smaller-diameter hoses to comply with current requirements of the standard. Since you might want to review this not ice in light of the information provided you in this letter, I have enclosed a duplicate copy for your convenience.

You also ask whether there are requirements other than those included in Standard No. 106 that must be met by accessory lines. The answer to your question is no. The air brake hoses you intend to use in accessory lines need comply only with Standard No. 106 to be manufactured and sold in this country.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(4/17/86 Federal Register notice of termination of rulemaking, 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 85-04, Notice 2) omitted.

Januxary 12, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today, during a conversation with Ms. Dierdra Hom, I raised a question which she has suggested that I pass along to you for comment.

This question involves a vehicle equipped with an air brake system which is within the jurisdiction of DOT 106-74. When such a vehicle also uses the compressed air system to power accessory non-brake equipment, such as horns or windshield wipers, must th e hoses and or plastic tubing, along with their associated couplings, also meet the requirements of DOT 106? Are their other requirements which must also be met by non-safety-related accessories which may also be powered by, and therefore connected to th e compressed air system?

I look forward to receiving your comment.

Yours truly,

Albert Schwarz

Senior Engineer, Product Development

ID: nht87-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Clarence M. Ditlow III, Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has rece ntly issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

With the 1987 model year less than a month away, automobile dealers will soon be selling large numbers of vehicles equipped with passive restraints. Unfortunately, while the passive restraint requirement has the potential for saving thousands 0f lives an nually, these benefits will not be realized if dealerships mock the standard by disconnecting the automatic seat belts offered by some manufacturers.

The cumbersome and easily detached automatic belts offered by General Motors, for example, will actually encourage disconnection by dealerships and consumers. The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor convenientl y rolling the loose belt up into the retractor. GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed.

Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given that other auto companies will have far superior belts on their 1987 models. Ford, Nissan and Toyota will all use motorized passive belts with demonstrat ed consumer acceptance. For the past ten model years, Volkswagon has sold an automatic belt that is so easy to use consumers don't disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard ride r" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard." The NHTSA has previously ruled this section does not prohibit dealers from disconnecting an, automatic seat belt to demonstrate the emergency release mechanism. However, this section clearly prohibits dealers from disconnecting and disablin g automatic seat belts in all other circumstances. If they do so, they are liable for a $1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act.

The temporary disconnection of an automatic belts for the purpose of demonstrating the emergency release mechanism is a separate and unique activity easily distinguishable from having display models with disconnected automatic belts sitting on the showro om floor. The same is true of allowing vehicles to be test driven with disconnected belts, or delivered to purchasers with detached automatic belts. These practices have no safety benefit and serve only to encourage consumer disuse or automatic belts, th ereby undercutting their unique contribution of automatic belts to occupant protection.

Accordingly, the Center for Auto Safety petitions the NHTSA to issue, prior "to the beginning or the 1987 model year, an interpretive legal opinion of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act stating it is illegal for dealers to: (1) display 1987 models with disconnected automatic seat belts on the showroom floor or on the dealership lot, (2) conduct test drives with automatic belts disconnected, and (3) deliver 1987 models at the time of purchase with automatic belts disconnecte d. NHTSA is also requested to rule that dealers who so violate Section 108 by displaying and selling new cars with automatic belts disconnected are subject to a 81,000 per vehicle fine.

Sincerely, Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: nht87-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-22-87, TO DEIRDRE HOM, FROM JAN PETER KRYGER, OCC-1071

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a r oller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicles equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review

whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.

ID: nht87-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Farrel L. Krall -- Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/15/72 letter from R.L. Carter to Frank and Frank (Std. 113)

TEXT:

Mr. Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation Navistar International 2911 Meyer Road P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne, IN 46801

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems. You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section 54.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, one on each size at the front corner of the access hood. A s discussed below, a front-opening hood with two secondary latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ((NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standard;. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 54.2 states:

A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.

You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated that while the agency favors a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard.

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section 54.2 permits the following types of installation; a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primarily and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 ( copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section 54.2 and would comply with that requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

March 6, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Navistar International Corporation is considering the design and production of a new front opening hood and requests your interpretation as to compliance of the hood latching mechanism with FMVSS-113, Hood Latch Systems. As shown in the attached photogra phs, the front-opening hood in question is a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system.

Section 4.2 of FMVSS-113 states, "A front opening hood, which in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield, must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system."

The latch system design for our new front opening hood consists of two separate latches, one on each side at the front corner of the access hood, see example of the latch in the enclosed pictures.

We have researched the interpretation file on Standard 113 and find only one letter from the Agency that seems to be relative, copy enclosed. This letter dated June 15, 1972, concerns a Chevrolet hood latch system wherein the Agency stated that "While... we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard."

Our design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood. We therefore believe this system meets both the intent and legal requirements of Standard 113 and would appreciate receiving your formal concurrence. Sin ce this is a priority design issue, we would appreciate an expeditious reply. Please call me if additional information is needed.

Very truly yours,

Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation 219/461-1008