ID: nht87-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R.O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the test procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response.

You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 o f the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track "stop" and move a power bench or bucket seat to its "full forward" and "full down" position. As explained be low, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency ha s recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the iss ue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manuf acturer in its certification tests. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.

You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example, S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7 .4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.

However, the latchplate access requirement of S7.4.4 of the standard does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment positi on. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position used by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation of the requirements of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S10.6 prescribes that the seat shall be "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining th e seat belt latchplate reach envelopes. Based on our review of Standard 208, we interpret "forwardmost adjustment position" to mean that a manually adjustable bench or bucket seat is moved to the forward seat track "stop" and in similar manner a power be nch or bucket seat is moved to its "full forward" position while in the "full down" position. These adjustment procedures provide a consistent test dummy location which we believe is the NHTSA's intent for conducting the prescribed tests for both manual and power seats.

The above interpretation of "forwardmost adjustment" position was discussed with Mr. Edward Jettner of the Office of Vehicle Standards. He concurred with our interpretation, but suggested that we seek confirmation of it.

We believe that the above interpretation is correct based on other discussions of seat adjustment in the standards. Paragraph S7.4.3 of MVSS 208 provides:

S7.4.3, Belt Contact Force, is tested in accordance with S10.7 which, in turn, requires that the user "--position the test dummy in the vehicle in accordance with -- S10.1 or S10.2 and -- S8.1.2 and S8.1.3." S8.1.2 requires that "adjustable seats are -- midway between forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position; (underlined for emphasis)

Paragraph S.7.4.5 adds:

S7.4.5, Retraction, is also "tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 --."

Paragraph S4.3.2 of MVSS 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, similarly provides at a power seat is to be adjusted to full down position:

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. With the seat in its full rearward and downward position . . . . (underlined for emphasis).

From these references, we conclude that for consistency in positioning the test dummy for purposes of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, a power seat is adjusted to the forwardmost "full downward" position and a manual seat track is adjusted to the forwardmost position. We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

R.O. Sornson

ID: nht87-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWIN M. SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 2-19-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, TO EDWIN SPEARS JR., REDBOOK A31

TEXT: As suggested by Deirere Hom, I am writing to seek assistance with an issue facing some public school systems in North Carolina.

Some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet federal schoolbus specifications. These vans are used primarily to transport teachers and administrators, but are also used from time to time to transport students to extracurricular activities .

I am familiar with the definitions of "schoolbus" in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14) and in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.3, but am uncertain about how these definitions apply to the circumstance described above. My specific questions are:

1. Are school systems prohibited by federal law from using vans that do not meet federal school bus standards to transport students to extracurricular activities on a regular basis or on an occasional basis?

2. Has the Secretary adopted any regulations that define the term "significantly" as it appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (14)?

Any assistance you could give me with these questions would be appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: EAST, MORRIS -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 16, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO EAST

TEXT: This request for an opinion concerns the interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to school buses.

One of our local school systems has requested an opinion with respect to the changing of a school bus body from one chassis frame to another chassis frame. As we understand it, they intent to remove the bus body from an existing chassis and and place tha t body onto a new chassis. The work would be performed by the local school system's school bus maintenance shop. The shop has the facilities to perform most bus body repairs. We fully understand that Congress has placed the responsibility for overseei ng the manufacture of school buses with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, we are asking for an opinion from your office concerning this matter. Specifically we need an answer to the following questions:

1. Is is permissible under the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bu s chassis? Would this action violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220 and 221)?

2. If permitted, can the work described in 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops su ch as bus body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

3. If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

Your timely answer to the above questions will assist us in expediting our response to the local school board and will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Anderson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager Phoenix Products Company, Inc. 4715 North 27th Street Milwaukee, WI 53209

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1987, with respect to the acceptability of stroboscopic lighting as a supplement to the center high-mounted stop lamp. This lamp, or a series of lamps, would operate only under "panic" conditions, when the opera tor exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. You envision both OEM and aftermarket applications.

The acceptability of supplemental lighting equipment is determinable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which i s issued under its authority. Standard No. 108 is primarily concerned with the lighting equipment that it mandates as original equipment for motor vehicles, and replacement equipment for those items. Supplemental stroboscopic lamps are not covered by the standard, but as original equipment is nevertheless subject to several restrictions. A lamp that is not covered by Standard No. 108 is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. (Paragraph S4.1.3. ) We offer no opinion whether a stroboscopic panic light would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle's stop lamp system. However, all passenger car lamps except turn signals and hazard warning signals (and headlamps and side marker lamps when used for si gnaling) must be steady-burning when in use. (S4.5.11) Since the strobe lamp is a pulsing one, it would therefore not be acceptable as original equipment.

Once a vehicle has been sold to its initial purchaser, the safety standards no longer apply. The only restriction that pertains to it is that any modification performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not ren der inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As your strobe design would not appear to interfere with the operation of the center high-mounted stop lamp, it does not ap pear to violate this restriction. However, aftermarket equipment of this nature would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which the device is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you of State laws, and suggest you contact for further advice the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 20, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is written subsequent to a telephone discussion this date with Atty. Taylor Vinson, of your office.

Our company is a manufacturer of lighting products, and at the present, is in a particularly aggressive mode in search of new products to serve both existing and new markets.

I have offered a new product suggestion which would apply to automotive crash avoidance: the suggestion provides for one or more (I visualize three) stroboscopic lights that could be placed adjacent or surrounding the third brake light mounted at the rea r window ("Elizabeth Dole light").

The stroboscopic light (or lights) would not operate under normal braking conditions, but would operate only under "panic" conditions when the operator exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. Such pressure would activate a switch, which in turn, would fire the stroboscopic light(s), thereby providing an additional and attention-drawing warning.

Ms. Jones, my purpose in writing on this subject is that we would appreciate a determination that my suggestion would evolve into a product in conformance with any federal regulations that may exist relative to personal and commercial transportation.

If we learn from your office that the product is within legal limits, we would went to offer the product to both OEM and aftermarkets.

We will appreciate your guidance.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager

ID: nht87-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David O. Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David O. Johnson 135 Karen Drive Washington, PA 15301

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your April 22, 1987, letter asking about the legality of transporting people in fifth wheel trailers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for promulgating safety standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The use of a motor vehicle, such as a trailer, is a matter over which we have no jurisdiction.

Because the legality of carrying people in trailers might be governed by State law, we suggest you contact State officials with your questions. Additionally, questions you might have about the operation of interstate motor carriers should be directed to Mr. Ton Kozlowski of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3403 ), Federal Highway Administration, at this address.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

135 Karen Drive Washington, PA 15301

April 22, 1987

Gentlemen:

Please send any information concerning regulations governing the legality of transporting people in a fifth wheel trailer with an intercom between the travel trailer and the towing vehicle.

My understanding is that the Navy transports personnel in this manner which leads me to believe it is legal to do so.

Your prompt attention will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

David O. Johnson

ID: nht87-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07650

Dear Ms. Black:

Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and M r. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.

Standard 114, Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject to must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.

You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate that "for security reasons," you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.

You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicle operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is, removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.

Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that your key-locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect to preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.

Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will not meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-nobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 114

Dear Mr. Felrice:

At the NHTSA Industry meeting last Wednesday, I promised to call you the following day to discuss the difficulty we had encountered with FMVSS 114 as it relates to new technology.

I did not call, obviously, because it appeared that I needed same more detail from the engineering development and design staff in England. That detail has now arrived and to allow you the opportunity to look at the problem, I have opted to write. Once y ou have had an opportunity to look over the text, perhaps we can discuss either by telephone or in person.

Our difficulty appears to be with S4.2 and S4.3 of the relevant standard. Summary of S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key locking system that whenever the key is removed, will prevent:

a) normal activation of the vehicles engine or other main source of native power.

b) either steering or forward self mobility of the vehicle or both.

Summary of S4.3 The prime means of deactivating the vehicles engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterent required by S4.2(b).

For security reasons, I will not go into specific details of the system other than to say that by taking the key out of the ignition, we would meet paragraph (a) of S4.2. In other words, without the ignition key the vehicle cannot be activated. Without t he insertion of the ignition key activated, thus rendering the fueling and ignition maps inactive. This meets one of the condition in paragraph (b) of S4.2, in that with the processors inactive the engine will not run therefore the vehicle cannot move un der it; own forward mobility.

Perhaps we have overinterpreted the standard 114 to require steering column locks but your comment and thoughts would be appreciated. In further discussion, I can provide more detail of the system for you.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance and Product Development

ID: nht87-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager, Product Engineering Michelin Americas Research & Development Corp. P.O. BOX 1987 Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that you currently mark a tire with the size designation 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J. You also stated that this tire has the same dimensions as a 15 R 22.5 Load Range J tire. You asked whether Standard No. 119 would prohibit the following size designation from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual man ufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

With respect to the 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J tire size, Michelin has not furnished any individual information for this tire size to the agency. The only standardization organization that has published tire and rim matching information for this tire siz e is the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), which did so in its 1987 yearbook. Accordingly, section S5.2 of Standard No. 119 provides that the information for this tire size in the 1987 ETRTO yearbook is considered to be information fo r Michelin's tires of that size.

The 1987 ETRTO yearbook shows the tire size only as 385/65 R 22.5. As noted above, section S6.5(c) requires that the tire size designation on the sidewall be "as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1". Reading this requirement as na rrowly as possible, S6.5(c) prohibits Michelin from marking the tires as both 385/65 R 22.5 and 15 R 22.5, since the size is shown only as 385/65 R 22.5 in the publication designated in S5.1 of Standard No. 119.

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohi biting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

File: FMVSS 119

15 May 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regards to the marking requirements of FMVSS 119. We have a tire which is marked with the tire designation 385/65R22.5 LRJ. This tire has the same dimensions as the 15R22.5 LRJ and therefore can replace that tire. Would the following marking m eet the requirements of FMVSS 119?

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

We would appreciate a prompt reply to this question.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John B. White Engineering Manager Product Engineering

ID: nht87-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen Kraco Enterprises, Inc. 505 E. Euclid Ave. Compton, CA 90224

Dear Mr. van Kreuningen:

This responds to your letters asking about the effect of Federal law or regulations on an aftermarket steel "shelf" which you have designed for installation in the area above the windshield where the sun visors are located. The shelf would be used to hol d small items such as maps or glasses and would be provided with visors on its underside to replace the vehicle's original visors. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment which contains a safety defect.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mountin g must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or i ts mounting with their heads. If your shelf were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visors attached to it would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard, and the shelf would have to meet the mounting requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Although you propose to sell your shelf in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, the standard can nonetheless affect persons who install the shelf. The Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehi cles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mounting. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your shelf, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your shelf complied with the s tandard. The sole exception to this rule is the individual owner, who may install a shelf in his own vehicle without regard to the standard.

In addition to the requirements of the standard, our safety effect authority could have a bearing on your sale of the shelf. If the shelf would normally be installed so that its rear edge could be hit by an occupant's head in a crash, it would seem likel y to cause serious injury. It is thus possible that the shelf would be determined to contain a safety defect subject to recall. I urge you to examine the possibility of such injury before you make further plans to market the shelf.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

On March 25, 1986, we sent a letter to you requesting what safety standards apply on an accessory shelf to be used in cars or trucks.

As of this date, we have not received a reply. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Attached is a copy of the letter for your information.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

March 25, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington. D.C.

Subject: Accessory Shelf for Truck/Cars

Gentlemen:

Kraco Enterprises is a manufacturer/distributor of automotive aftermarket sound and accessory equipment.

Presently, we are evaluating the feasibility of marketing a "shelf" which is to be installed in the general area where normally visors are located. The shelf is made of steel and is provided with new visors. It is to be used to place small items (cigaret te;, glasses, maps, etc.) within easy reach of the driver or front seat passenger. A sketch of the shelf, including mounting instructions, is attached for your review.

Before pursuing this item further, we would like to receive the following information:

1) Is this type of product presently prohibited?

2) If not, what safety standards apply?

Please supply us with copies of applicable safety standards.

If you desire any additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

ID: nht87-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gary Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager LSI Safelite 801 South Wichita Wichita, KS 67201

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the use of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested tha t you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as "stock glass", since a customer purchases sheets of glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we of fer the following.

The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials are contained in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers . (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which must carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a compon ent of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use to which the glazing material will be put, there is no requirement that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to "Luci te" Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the d istributor or manufacturer.

In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number on glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Room 5219-NCC01 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika:

Lear Siegler Incorporated - Safelite Division is a manufacturer of laminated and tempered safety glazing for use in automotive applications. Safelite manufactures safety glazing for specific locations in motor vehicles as well as laminated products that Safelite's customers will cut into parts for use in motor vehicles at their locations. This particular type of laminated glass, that will be cut by Safelite's customers into various parts for various unknown applications, is called "stock glass Stock gla ss is the subject of this letter.

LSI-Safelite has a customer who is requesting Safelite to include in it's trademark on each piece of stock glass, the Department of Transportations number. Safelite has a strong conviction that Safelite should not put it's Department of Transportation nu mber in the trademark of stock glass.

Safelite's man reason for having this conviction is that Safelite has no control over how it's customers use this glass after the customer(s) cut down into various parts for automotive glazing usage. The customer may very well use the AS-2 glass for a wi ndshield application which, in accordance to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. is incorrect usage of this particular type of glazing.

This letter is a request for a written interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's legal council of the Motor Vehicle Codes and/or Safety Standards views of using the prime manufacturers of safety glazing materials Department of Transportation code number on glazing that their customers will be cutting into various parts for usage unknown to the prime glazing material manufacturers.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Your timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance.

Respectfully,

Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager

ID: nht87-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah Rutan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah Rutan Director of Marketing/Research The Rutabaga Co., Inc. P.O. Box 413 605 Robson Street Winona Lake, IN 46590

Dear Ms. Rutan:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213; copy enclosed). Specifically, you sought our "comments and recommendations" on a child harness/vest that yo ur company has developed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

As you noted in your letter, your product is a "child restraint system" within the meaning of section S4 of Standard No. 213. This means that is subject to all applicable requirements of the standard. From the pictures and descriptions of your harness/ve st included with your letter, it appears that the harness/vest would have to be modified to comply with four particular requirements in Standard No. 213.

The first requirement with which your harness/vest does not appear to comply is set forth in section S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard No. 213. That section provides that each child harness shall "provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt." Th e pictures of your harness/vest show that it does not include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You will have to modify the design of the harness/vest to include a crotch belt in order for your harness/vest to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

The second requirement with which your harness/vest may not comply is the flammability resistance requirement incorporated in section S5.7 of Standard No. 213. That section provides, "Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the re quirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302." I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. As you will see, that standard requires that subject materials be resistant to flammability. You stated in your letter that the "vest fabric is a strong, yet lightweight, polyester jersey knit." It is not clear from this description if you knew your company has to certify that this vest fabric complies with the flammability resistance requirements specified in Standard No. 213.

The third and fourth requirements with which your harness/vest does not appear to comply are the labeling requirements in S5.5 of Standard No. 213 and the installation instructions in S5.6 of Standard No. 213. Both these requirements specify that certain information must be provided with each child restraint system. In the case of the labeling information, you are required to permanently label your harness/vest with the information specified in S5.5.2(a) through (1). Further, S5.5.3 requires that the in formation specified in S5.5.2(g) through (k) shall be located on the child restraint system so that it is visible when the system is properly installed in a vehicle. In the case of the installation instructions, S5.6.6 requires that the harness/vest have a location on it for storing your installation instructions. This could be satisfied by adding a pouch to the vest for storing these instructions.

In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that the harness/vest complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of Standard No. 213. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harnes s/vest you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard No. 213. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint, or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Nation al Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), we only require that a manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling a new child restraint system test the system in accordance with the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213 before certifying that the new system complies with Standard No. 213. Once you determine that your harness/vest complies with all requirements of Standard No. 213, you would certify that compliance by placing a certification label on the harness/vest, as specified in section S5.5 of the standard.

You should also be aware of the fact that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness/vest for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your harness/vest did not comply with a requirement of Standard No. 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and either:

1. repair the harness/vest so that the noncompliance or defect was removed; or

2. replace the harness/vest with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the noncompliance or defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, your company as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge the owners of the harness/vests anything for the remedy if those harness/vests we re purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you decide to manufacture these harness/vests for sale, you should also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address, and a bri ef description of the child restraints it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured.

Finally, I would like to make clear that this discussion of our requirements is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or items of equipment, such as your harness/vests, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to the new product. It is up to the individual manufacturer to assess the value and prac ticality of its product.

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.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 April 22, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones,

We have recently developed a new type of Child Safety Restraint System. We were referred to this Administration by Mr. Tim Kennedy of the N.S.C., and received your name through the office of Occupant Protection. It was their suggestion, as well as our Pa tent Attorneys', Lundy and Walker, to write and explain the product in detail. Enclosed you will find photos of a 3 yr. old child wearing the Safety Restraint System.

According to the Fed. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: as stated in the definition for Child Restraint Systems (Law 49 CFR 571.213), "a child restraint system is any device except type I or II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 lbs. or less."

Construction

Our Safety Restraint System is a type of harness/vest which is held secure by means of an existing type I seat belt. The harness/vest is designed with the following safety features:

-240 P.S.I. Dupont strapping extending from the front waist, up over the shoulders, crossing mid-back, and forming a casing at the lower back edge- in which to secure the seat belt (belt must be tightened down to seat level).

-Two adjustable straps encasing the vest; mid-chest, and t bottom. -Fastex SRI Cam Buckles; U.L. approved with 300 P.S.I., are attached to the above two straps, and fasten at vest font. -Front closure (beneath cam buckles) is made from a 2x10" strip of industrial strength 8-hock Velcro, with 50# pull strength, enduring up to 20,000 pulls. -Vest fabric is a strong, yet light-weight, polyester jersey knit.

Concept

It should be understood that this Safety Restraint System is designed for children ages 3-6; not to exceed 50#. It has been our observation and experience, that children of this age group have out-grown the Ca Seat, and should be fastened into seat belts . However, many times children resist seat belt usage because of discomforts, such as: seat belts that tighten on the tummy as the child moves, children can't see out the window, or can't lay down when sleepy. As a result, many small children are left un belted and unprotected, even though this is against the law in many states.

Our concept of an ideal Safety Restraint system for ages 3-6, is one that protects from forward motion in case of impact, yet offers more comfort and flexibility. In our opinion, the harness/vest would hold the child in place; not squeezing the stomach, and gives a bit more freedom of movement -- such as laying down, and sitting on the knees. Comfortable, happy, children will be safer children; staying in their seat belts via the harness/vest device, which we have developed.

In closing, the proto-type as shown in the photos, was sewn on a domestic sewing machine. If put into production, the product will be sewn on commercial machines, capable of heavy-duty stitching.

We look forward to your comments and recommendations, especially concerning any product-safety tests, which may be necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration of this new Child restraint System.

Sincerely,

Deborah Rutan

SEE HARD COPY FOR PICTURE ILLUSTRATIONS

Door. or Marketing/Research