ID: nht87-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wally Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Wally Lang Langco, In 1340 Walden Drive Elgin, IL 60120

Dear Mr. Lang:

I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This "buckle shield" is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child r estraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to re lease the buckle.

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), which app lies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with th at Standard before selling the product.

Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In stead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically t ests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the re lated topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in i nstances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger t he child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 PR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (21 (A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an i tem of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies the elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield Here installed. Section 55.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shiel d would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section @5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each materi al used in a child restraints system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CER 5571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, co mmercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a) (2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child res traint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1987

FROM: ROBERT CUZZI -- BREDA TRANSPORTATION, INC.

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

TITLE: 020-1287

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-17-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO ROBERT CUZZI, STD 301

TEXT: My company, Breda Transportation, Inc., is currently working on a contract for the design, manufacture, and delivery of 236 articulated buses to the city of Seattle. the buses will be designed and manufactured in Italy, with final assembly in the United States.

The buses' fuel tank will be built in Italy, and my question regards this. I need to know what federal standards and regulations, if any, refer to the fuel tank. Yesterday, 12/8/87, I spoke to Ms. Deidre Hom of your office, and she informed me that FMV SS 301 applies to fuel tanks, but for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. There are, it seems, no applicable FMVSS standards.

Could you please confirm this, in writing, or advise me if there are any applicable federal standards which pertain to bus fuel tanks?

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-3.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. 4747 N. Channel P.O. BOX 3849 Portland, Oregon 97208

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Section 56.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that "(the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load an the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." According to your letter, you have interpreted the term "equivalent" in this section to "authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual st opping conditions." You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.

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 the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation was submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with S tandard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certificate and interpretation concerning section 56.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of 55.4.1 (brake retardation force-relevant only to towed vehicles), 55.4.2 (brake power), and 55.4.3 (brake recov ery), under the conditions of 56.2. One of those conditions, set forth in 56.2.1, is as follows:

S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.

In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load of the axles shifts so that the front axle load rise s and the rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer "can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in vi ew of actual vehicle behavior." With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carr ying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.

You then stated the following:

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent" loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the texts required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic condition s by the word "equivalent."

We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe is inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indic ated above, 56.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is "equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating." The phrase "equivalent to the load" uses the singular "load," instead of the plural "l oads," to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that 56.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.

Further, the overall language of 56.2.1 shows how the single dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term "GAWR" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single ax le system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces." When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying" capacity, there is one "load on the wheel," at whose "equivalent" the dynamometer inertia must be set.

While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on the issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of a past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an in terpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:

In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamometer inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pound s as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.

That interpretation explicitly states that the dynamometer inertia is set with regard to the assigned GAWR, and makes no reference to the varying values of axle load during braking. This agency interpretation has been a matter of public record for the la st 15 years. Moreover, as OVSC noted in its letter of April 9, 1987, its test procedure TP-121-02 provides a specific formula for calculating "dynamometer inertia equivalent to the GAWR for the applicable vehicle axle." This test procedure has been used by the agency since March 163 1978, and has been available to the public since that date.

You asserted in your letter that the static GAWR is "permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent'." We find no basis in the word "equivalent" for your suggestion that the load on the wheel- should somehow be calculated during bra king. Section S6.2.1 uses the term "equivalent" to account for the fact that the terms "load" and "inertia" are different without the same dimensions and are not numerically equal; an axle's tire rolling radius must be considered in determining the prope r inertia as well as the load. We note that section S5.4.2.1 of Standard No. 121 uses the term "equivalent" in the same manner. That section specifies for dynamometer testing that the drum or disc be "rotating at a speed equivalent to 50 m.p.h." Since t he drum or disc is obviously not moving along longitudinally, the word "equivalent" in that section is used to bridge the gap between longitudinal and rotational movement.

Your letter also argued that a February 18, 1976, interpretation letter to Oshkosh supports your suggested interpretation of 56.2.1. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehicle that meets section S5.1.1's requirements for air Compressor capacity when it is movin g must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The agency stated:

Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they aff ect the outcome of testing.

We do not agree that this letter supports your suggested interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.

You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as "a safe and effective system" in its research te sting.

We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for norma l and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions: and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driv ing. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different br ake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section 56.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requir ements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.

Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brake system is "safe and effective." We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken ou t of context. We note that you stated that "(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . . well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19)." A more complete quotation is as fol lows:

. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also able to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to t he same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it Has not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires."

Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing its investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 22,1987

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

RE: Request for an Interpretation Concerning FMVSS 121, Air Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of our parent company, Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft (DBAG), Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc. (MBTC) requests an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, Air Brake Systems. This standard specifies that for tests c onducted on a dynamometer, "The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.

49 C.F.R. S 571.121.56.2.1. DBAG has interpreted the term "equivalent in this regulation to authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions. It is this interpretation which we are asking be confirmed by your offic e.

The need for such an interpretation is the result of recent correspondence between MBTC and NHTSA. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked MBTC, as the manufacturer of trucks bearing the trade name of Mercedes-Benz, to submit information on the compliance with FMVSS 121 of Mercedes-Benz truck model L-1317. MBTC filed a response to this request containing the DBAG compliance certificate and the foregoing interpretation. In a letter dated April 9, 1987, NEF-31 HTS CIR 2879.1, the Office info rmed MBTC that it does not agree with the DBAG interpretation of FMVSS 121 used to assess compliance.

In determining compliance with FMVSS 121, DBAG recognizes, as do all automotive engineers, that axle loads of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions. That is, as a vehicle traveling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and the rear axle load falls. (See DBAG Compliance Certificate, section 2.16) Under Standard 121, the manufacturer must specify an axle load in connection with the tests conducted to assess compliance. It is DBAG' s reading of Standard 121 that the manufacturer can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.

As noted above, Standard 121 refers to the "gross axle weight rating" (GAWR) of the vehicle. GAWR is defined generally as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-grou nd interfaces."

49 C.F.R. S 571.3(b). When used in the context of Parts 567 (Certification) and 568 (Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit a static determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. The nominal GAWR value on the certification label therefore must be used for such a determination.

A test to represent a dynamic procedure such as braking presents quite different requirements. Instead of a static measurement, such a test should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration. Standard 121 mandates dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions. Thus, the question is whether the standard is specific in requiring a GAWR determined on a static test or whether language would permit the type of interpretation utilized by DBAG.

The language of 56.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicates that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the "equivalent" to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAwR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This languag e is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an "equivalent. loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by 55.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word "equivalent."

The foregoing interpretation is supported by prior interpretative guidelines of the Agency. The standard itself does not specify that the "load on the wheel" must be evaluated in a static manner. In fact, it specifically uses the word "equivalent," a wor d not used in other sections of the standard. (See for comparison 5.5.6.1) In the context of braking, a manufacturer could, therefore, reasonably conclude that the dynamics of wheel loads under deceleration can be considered. In a letter to the Oshkosh T ruck Corporation, the Chief Counsel's Office has supported such an interpretation. In the Oshkosh case, the Agency indicated that, where the standard is silent as to an issue, the manufacturer may exercise its discretion. Oshkosh had asked whether a vehi cle that complies with S5.1.1 of the standard (air compressor capacity) when it is moving must also comply when the vehicle is stationary. The Chief Counsel replied:

"Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they af fect the outcome of testing." Letter from Richard B. Dyson to Oshkosh Truck Corporation (February 18, 1976).

For these reasons also, DBAG relies on the conclusion that Standard 121 does not specifically restrict the test procedure and permits a manufacturer to assess compliance by reference to the dynamics of braking for an actual vehicle. DBAG has concluded th at in order to provide an appropriate braking system, with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions . Such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle.

The Agency's own testing of the L-1317 supports this Conclusion. In August 1986, the Agency issued a report entitled, "Performance Evaluation of a Production Antilock System Installed on a Two Axle Straight Truck (NHTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Researc h Program Report #6)" which included dynamic testing of this vehicle with and without the use of its ABS system. The Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were "... well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same p edal effort level." (p. 19). Further, the Agency reported that "... in the empty condition the vehicle has a relatively high braking efficiency over a broad range of road friction levels." The report explains that efficiency is a measure of the vehicle's ability to use available friction before lockup and loss of control occurs (p. 19). Finally, the report generally notes "if loss of control of the overbraked axle prevents the driver, no matter how skilled he is, from utiliz ing the full capability of the underbraked axle .." (p. 22). Accordingly, not only does FMVSS 121 provide sufficient breadth to allow the interpretation utilized by Daimler-Benz, its use results in a braking system which the Agency has recognized as a sa fe and effective system.

Based on the foregoing request, we would appreciate your office responding with respect to the appropriateness of this interpretation. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Gary W. Rossow Director, Government Technical Affairs

cc: Mr. George L. Parker

ID: nht87-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Interworld Commodities, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Isaiah Herman President Interworld Commodities, Inc. 15 West 44th Street New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Herman: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1987. One of your clients "plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine" to be shipped to Japan, and would like "to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehi cle". The car in question is a Lincoln Town Car.

We understand that the Lincoln Town Car is available from several converters in a lengthened, or "stretched" version. We further understand from a conversation that you had with Taylor Vinson of this Office that your clients intend to purchase the vehicl e and have it converted after title passes to them. The converter is subject to the restriction that it must not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This restriction applies regardless of the future use or location of the vehicle. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to new and untitled vehicles that a manufacturer intends for export, and if the alterations to a car owned by your clients resulted in noncompliances we would regard this as only a technical violation of the restriction provided that the vehicle were shipped to japan immediately following the modifications.

I hope that this answers your questions. Forgive our delay in replying to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

10/13/87

Ms. Erika Jones Office of the Chief Council NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

I was told today via one of your staff that you can be of assistance. I have a client who, has plans to purchase a Corporation Stretched Limousine to be shipped to Japan.

They would like to obtain the standards and regulations for the modifications that are done to the vehicle. If there are none please be kind enough to send a letter stating that fact.

I further understand Code of federal Regulations Volume 49 CRF 500 Series would be helpful. Please indicate where to obtain the regulations and any other standards. They are considering purchasing a Lincoln Town Car.

Thank you

Sincerely,

Isaiah Herman

President

ID: nht87-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/10/87

FROM: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO THOMAS H. JAHNKE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32C4, STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

Oasis Industries, Inc. is a Fiberglass manufacture, located in the Midwest.

We are in the process of coming out with a new product line of hardtops for convertable cars.

I would like to find out, through the Dept. of Transportation, if their are any spec. we need to comply with for safety and or standards.

In a conversation I had today with a Mr. Hunter, of the Dept. of Transportation, he explained that their were not any regulations of specs. on this type of product.

Even though Mr. Hunter has verbally made this statement, we feel that it is necessary to get this commitment in writing.

I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation on the above matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Muirhead

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht87-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1987

FROM: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TO: OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -- DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO LLOYD J. OSBORN, VSA 101(3)

TEXT: Please provide us with information concerning the list of vehicles which have been determined by NHSSA to be excluded as motor vehicles.

We need this information for our Customs procedures that we are formulating.

Your prompt response in this matter would be appreciated.

ID: nht87-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/87

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- NHTSA

TO: Edwin C. Silverstein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edwin C. Silverstein 108 Mayfair Lane Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Silverstein:

Thank you for your letter of August 16, 1986, concerning how our standards apply to a product you have invented. According to the literature you provided us, your product, "Limo Leash" is a harness system used to secure an animal in a vehicle. The system consists of a piece of webbing which can be attached at either end to the "clothes hooks" installed in a vehicle. A snap hook, which can be attached to the animal's collar, slides along the webbing to allow the animal to move back and forth.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to a harness system used for animals. However, since your product is sold as an accessory for use in a motor vehicle, we would consider it an item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the manufa cturer of your product would be covered by the agency's regulations on safety-related defects that would pose a hazard to other vehicle occupants. I have enclosed an information sheet which describes those regulations.

Since there may be state regulations governing the manufacture or use of your product, I suggest you check with state transportation officials in the jurisdictions in which you intend to market your product.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

SIZE Associates

LIMO-LEASH

A vehicle animal safety harness for the protection of your pet and the safety of the driver.

This Animal Safety Harness is adjustable. can be made shorter or longer by the use of the Cam-Buckles at each end of the webbing. D-Rings with Bar can be hooked on the existing clothes hooks that have been installed by the Car/Truck Manufacturer. The Sna p-Hook and Tri-Ring can be move back and forth on the webbing. Enclosed for your convenience are two (2) Suction Disks with Hooks. They will be used Only if you want your pet further to the rear of your vehicle. (Suggestion : Any type of adhesive can be used on the suction disks for a stronger hold) Attach Suction Disks On the rear side windows of your vehicle at the same height.

Edwin C. Silverstein 108 Mayfair Lane Mt. Laurel, N. Joseph

Aug 16, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council NHTSA

Ref: LIMO LEASH

My Dear Erika Z. Jones

A Mr. William Smith advised me to send you a letter in reference to the "LIMO LEASH", an animal harness for the safety of the driver of a car/truck and the safety of the animal.

Please advise me what I shall do so I can get your opinion on the invention of mine.

Respectfully,

Ed Silverstein

ID: nht87-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert C. Geschwender -- Lin-Mart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Geschwender Lin-Mart P.0. Box 82431 Lincoln, NE 68501-2431

This responds to your November 3, 1987 letter to me asking whether any of our regulations apply to the "Head Hugger," an aftermarket product you have designed for use in motor vehicles. The Head Hugger is a head pillow that attaches to a head restraint a nd is designed to support a passenger's head and neck when he or she is seated in a reclined position. I hope the following information is helpful.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of mo tor vehicle equipment, we have no standard directly applicable to the Head Hugger. Thus, the manufacture and sale of your aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Feder al motor vehicle safety standard.

However, if the Head Hugger will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product in certain circumstances. That section of the Act requires m anufactures, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with our standards for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202) of flammability resistance (St andard No. 302). In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

Again, however, the prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the Head Hugger, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

There is an additional aspect of the Act of which you should be aware. The act requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that th e Head Hugger contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.

We have enclosed a copy of the act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies or our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

3-11-87

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.- Room 5219

Dear Ms. Jones:

I wish to establish if there is any legal requirement on a new "after market" automotive product which I have designed.

The item is an auto head pillow for use in the reclined seat position.

The item named Head Hugger is upholstered with polyester and polyester and cotton blend fabrics. The filling is fire retardant polyurethane foam block.

If this product manufactured as an after market item falls under any federal regulations, please supply copies of acceptable regulations. Thank you.

Yours Truly,

Robert C. Geschwender

cc: Senator J.J. Exon

HEAD HUGGER TM

(Recliner AUTO PILLOW)

The head hugger is designed to be used in conjunction with reclined auto seats. Although reclined auto seats are offered on many cars the head rests are primarily as a head restraint in the event of rear impact. Most head rests are designed to have a 2 inch clearance between the rest and the occupants head so as not to interfere with head movement. This, however, provides inadequate support in a reclined position.

Head Hugger supports not only the head but also the neck from road jarring. The unique saddle shape of the Head Hugger prevents the resting head from sliding to far too either side. Head Hugger's tapered shape assures a smooth transition betwe en upper seat and the head support.

The unit can be easily installed in any car with a head rest by use of the two velcro straps which are attached to the hood on the back of the Head Hugger. The two strap attachment allows the Head Hugger to be used on either seat including those with s eat belts attached to the head rests.

A trial of the Head Hugger will convince any person of its comfort.

ID: nht87-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/87

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL; MABEL Y. BULLOCK -- ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TO: WILLIAM S. HIATT -- COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLES; REGULATIONS OF DARK-SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A) (2) (A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINT ING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, NOA-30; LETTE R DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Question: Would a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles be preempted by current federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter?

Conclusion: Yes.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act of 1966 authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (HTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. "Motor vehicle e quipment" is defined in the Act, 15 USCS @ 1391(4) as:

"(4) 'Motor vehicle equipment' means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accesso ry, or addition to the motor vehicle, and any device, article, or apparel not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle (other than medicines, or eyeglasses prescribed by a physician or other duly licensed practitioner), which is manufactured, sold , delivered, offered, or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death."

Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Material", sets performance requirements for glazing materials in in new motor vehicles and those sold as replacement equipment. Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials for use in motor vehicles conform to the American national Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" (ANSZ26). This standard requires specific amounts of light transmittance and abrasion resistance.

Standard No. 205 requires 70% light transmittance in all windows in passenger vehicles. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, motor homes, and trucks are required to have 70% light transmittance in the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left o f the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.

15 USCS @ 139.7(a)(2)(A) provides as follows:

"(2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance wi th an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the cours e of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of rep airing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Whoever violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each such violation. The combination of tinting film and glazing must be at least 70% light transmittance in windows requisite for driving visibility.

15 USCS @ 1392(d) provides as follows:

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmen t or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than th at required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard."

Congress may preempt State law by so stating in express terms. California Federal S.& L. Assn. v. Guerra, 93 L Ed 2d 613. Therefore, a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would conflict with St andard No. 205 which requires 70% light transmittance in windows requisite for driving visibility and would be preempted by the federal law. 15 USCS @ 1392(d).