ID: 86-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY -- JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ARKANSAS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/01/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, OCC - 0441

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kennedy:

This responds to your April 1, 1986, letter asking whether our regulations for school buses and transit buses apply to used school buses acquired to transport members of nonprofit organizations and churches. As I understand your letter, the Joint Interim Committee is especially interested in regulations pertaining to maintenance of used school buses and driver licensing. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

As explained below, while NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our requirements do not apply to the use of motor vehicles and we have no regulations directly applying to vehicle maintenance and driver licensing for buses other than school buses. However, we have issued recommendations for state pupil transportation programs that include guidelines for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications. I have enclosed a copy of those for your information.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations we issued for buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicles are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Vehicle Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used school buses you asked about are not required by Federal law to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

While the sale or use of used motor vehicles is not directly regulated by NHTSA, modifications of used motor vehicles are subject to Vehicle Safety Act limitations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part: "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 with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Thus, the repair or modification of used buses is subject to Federal regulation if commercial businesses are involved. Such persons are prohibited from modifying used vehicles in such a way that would negatively affect the safety provided by the Federally required safety features.

The second set of regulations applying to buses and school buses was issued by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Highway Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to make grants to the States. Each State administers its grants according to a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year.

Regulations implementing the Highway Safety Act include a number of "program standards" issued for states to adopt in their highway safety programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, are recommendations for ideal or model safety programs. I have enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, because it suggests requirements for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications which you might find helpful. Also, Standard No. 17 recommends that States not allow school buses that have been converted to be used for purposes other than transporting school students to be signed, painted, and equipped as school buses. A review of state law would determine which of the standard's recommendations have been adopted by Arkansas as part of its highway safety program.

In addition, the National Standards Division of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety will be able to provide you with information on regulations for the use of interstate motor carriers and driver licensing. You can contact them at 202-366-2981 or in Room 3404 at the address given above.

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

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GEORGE W. KEELEY, -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY; LETTER DATED 02/25/86 EST, TO RICHARD F HAHN FROM DIANE K STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Keeley:

Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1986, to Administrator Steed, which was referred to my office for reply. As stated in the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, to Mr. Hahn, the interpretation letter to Mr. Pennells should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment. Therefore, the Pennells letter, when read together with the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, represents the agency's advisory opinion on this issue.

As to your request for a copy of any future request for interpretation from Mr. Pennells, please be advised that all the requests for interpretations and agency advisory letters are publicly available from our docket section which is located at room 5109, at the above address. You may wish to contact, periodically, the docket section to obtain a copy of any interpretation letter issued by the agency.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/18/86 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. ARISAKA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you ask whether it is permissible to leave an inoperative center high-mounted stop lamp installed in a vehicle when an operative one is mounted on a spoiler at the rear of the car.

We assume that the new lamp fully complies with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps. Our answer is that it is permissible to leave the inoperative lamp in place since its function has been assumed by a conforming lamp. We have no regulations that would either prohibit or require the removal of an inoperative lamp.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TO: NHTSA, Legal Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/86, TO DON PANZER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 111

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find a photograph, illustration and description of a device designed to serve as a supplementary hazard warning signal for automobiles.

Since this device is a light and is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly I would appreciate an interpretation of it's suitability for the North American automotive market as per standards No. 108 (Lights) and No. 111 (Mirrors).

Should you require any information not already contained in this letter I would be please to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

SUPPLEMENTARY HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FOR AUTOMOBILES

This patented device serves as a supplementary hazard warning light for automobiles. It is included within the body or housing of the side rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively, it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions. It is designed to flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lights. Like current hazard warning lights this device can also perform as a directional signal

Present hazard warning lights are usually included in the front and rear light clusters. In bad weather or because of an accumulation of dirt,ice,etc. on the lenses, hazard warning lights can become less effective. Furthermore, if emergency work is being carried out on a vehicle, for example changing a tire, one or more of the existing warning lights can be invisible for relatively long periods of time thus reducing the warning to approaching traffic.

Like the high-mount brake light this device is located higher up on the vehicle to provide better visibility to oncoming traffic. Furthermore, because it is part of the side mirror configuration it is mounted well outside the range of the front and rear light clusters thus making it potentially more conspicious than current hazard warning lights.

FOR MORE INFORMTION CONTACT: Don Panzer SPRAY-RIDER, INC.

1

HAZARD WARNING APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

This invention relates to electrical, hazard warning apparatus for motor vehicles, of the kind in which, when required, lamps are made to flash continuously on the outside of the vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle in a stationary and possibly dangerous position. Such hazard warning apparatus is hereinafter referred to as "of the kind described".

Hazard warning lamps at present fitted to motor vehicles are usually included in the front and rear lamp clusters. In bad weather conditions or because of an accumulation of dirt on the lenses, hazard warning lamps in both these positions can become less effective. The hazard warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle are more likely to be ineffective than those at the front for these reasons.

When work is being carried out, for example the changing of a wheel, one or both hazard warning lamps, at the front or rear, can be invisible for relatively long periods and so give a misleading signal or fail to give any warning at all to approaching vehicles.

An indication that the usual position of hazard warning lamps is not really satisfactory is that on emergency vehicles special hazard warning lamps are usually fitted high up, for example on the roof of the vehicle.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the effectiveness of hazard warning apparatus.

The present invention consists in hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

To give a driver the required field of view exterior, rear-view mirrors must project well to the side of the vehicle, and be mounted at or above the waist, or window-sill level of the vehicle body. A repeater hazard warning lamp provided, according to the invention, in or on the rear-view mirror is therefore in a conspicuous position and at a higher level than the usual front and rear lamp clusters. The invention is applicable to exterior, rear-view mirrors adapted to be mounted in any of the usual positions on a vehicle, including on the door, wing, or windscreen pillar of the vehicle or on a laterally-projecting bracket clamped to the gutter rail of the vehicle body or to a luggage rack on the roof.

Most motor vehicles now have an exterior rear-view mirror on the near side in addition to one on the off-side of the vehicle. Each exterior rear-view mirror is preferably provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

It is preferred, and may be required by law, that the repeated hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

Hazard warning lamps often serve also as direction indicators, the lamps on only one side at a time of the vehicle then being arranged to flash. In such apparatus the repeater hazard warning lamp may then be

3 arranged to be operated with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

The repeater hazard warning lamp may be included within a body of the rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.

Within the same inventive concept the present invention comprises a motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

The present invention will now be described by way of example within reference to the accompanying drawing which is a perspective view of a rear-view mirror for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle and as seen when the observer is looking forwards from the rear of the vehicle.

The door mirror shown in the drawing comprises a mirror head 1 and a mounting bracket 2 by which the mirror is mounted on the vehicle door. The mirror head has a cowl-shaped body 3, which may be made from metal or plastics, foamed polyurethane for example. The body 3 houses a reflective element 4 and a repeater hazard warning Lamp 5 comprising a cavity 6 within the body 3 opening at a window 7 facing in the same direction as the reflective element 4, an electric lamp bulb 8 in the cavity 6 and a 'hazard' orange coloured plastics lens 9 closing the window but shown in the drawing partly broken away to show the lamp bulb 8. The lens 9 is secured by screws 10 engaging screw

4, threaded holes 11 in lugs 12 on the body 3. The bulb 8 is a festoon bulb mounted in a conventional festoon bulb holder 13 in front of a reflector 14. Though only one lamp bulb 8 is shown, there could be more than one bulb arranged, for example end to end to provide better light distribution and greater safety if one should fail. Other types of electric lamp bulbs may be provided.

Though the window is shown as arranged along the upper edge of the reflective element 4, and this is probably the best position, it could be along either of the other two outer edges of the reflective element 4, that is the lower edge 15 or the outer side edge 16.

A further window, facing forwards could be provided in the mirror head body so that the light of the repeater hazard warning lamp would also be visible from the front of the vehicle. Alternatively the repeater hazard warning lamp 5 could be mounted on a flat top of the body with an inverted, hollow, transparent or translucent cover over the lamp bulb so that the light would be visible in all directions.

The repeater hazard warning lamp 4 is electrically connected by a cable (not shown) which passes through the interior of the body 3 and the mounting bracket 2, the vehicle door and door pillar (not shown) to the wiring of the conventional hazard warning apparatus of the vehicle.

This hazard warning lamp apparatus according to the invention is well able to provide additional protection in hazard situations. The mirror in which the repeater hazard warning lamp is included can perform the normal functions to an extorior, rear-view

5 mirror. As the repeater hazard warning lamp is in a higher position than the conventional front and rear lamp clusters it is less exposed to soiling by road dirt. During forward motion of the vehicle the cowling shape of the body 3 protects the lens 9 from road spray.

6 CLAIMS

1. Hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

2. Hazard warning apparatus according to claim 1 wherein there is an exterior, rear-view mirror on each side of the vehicle and each mirror is provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

3. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body of the exterior rear-view mirror.

4. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any proceding claim wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

5. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

6. Hazard warning apparatus according to any preceding claim which is adapted to serve also as a direction indicator wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is operable only with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

7. A motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be

7 connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

8. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body housing the exterior rear-view mirror.

9. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 or claim 8 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

10. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 9 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp has a window adjacent an outer edge of the reflective element.

11. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a door mirror.

12. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a wing mirror.

13. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp, substantially as described herein with reference to, and as illustrated by the accompanying drawing.

14. Hazard warning apparatus for a motor vehicle substantially as herein described.

ID: 86-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joseph H. Barnett, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Joseph H. Barnett, Esq. Puckett, Barnett, Larson, Mickey Wilson & Ochsenschlager One Constitution Drive P.O. Box 1287 Aurora, Illinois 60507

Dear Mr. Barnett:

This responds to your letter concerning a brake shoe assembly invented by your client. You stated that it is contemplated that the item will be sold in the replacement or so called after market and asked whether governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

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 safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake shoe assembly, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not by required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Please note that the Vehicle Safety Act's provisions requiring manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge are applicable to motor vehicle equipment manufacturers even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

N.H.T.A. 40O - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

RE: Belk Brake Assembly Patent Application Serial No. 06/804,166

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This office is counsel for George L. Belk, the inventor of an improved brake shoe assembly. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the abstract describing same along with figures 1 and 2 of the mechanical drawing submitted with the patent application.

In previous art, the webs are welded to the table and by this invention they are held together by slots and belts. Prototypes have been successfully road-tested for many thousands of miles under heavy duty conditions.

It is contemplated that the market for the item will be in the replacement or so-called attachment. Could you please advise if governmental approval and/or testing is required before the invention can be marketed and placed in service.

Very truly yours,

J.H. Barnett

JHB/me

Enclosures

BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY

ABSTRACT

A bake shoe assembly for a vehicle includes a generally arcuate platform, to which a pad of friction lining is attached, and with is selectively connectable to a pair of supporting webs. Each web has a plurality o radially extending peripheral projections received by corresponding slots provided in the platform. Clamp means are provided for pressing the webs against the platform such that the projections and slots cooperate to locate the webs immovably on the platform. The platform and friction lining may thereby be removed from the webs while the webs remain installed within the brake drum of the vehicle.

ID: 86-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hubert J. Thomiszer -- Senior Mechanical Engineer, Triodyne, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hubert J. Thomiszer Senior Mechanical Engineer Triodyne Inc. 5950 West Touhy Avenue Niles, Illinois 60648

Dear Mr. Thomiszer:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether the 20 g acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat was based on a barrier impact test and, if so, at what speed. You also asked whether the 20 g acceleration was established taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors. Your questions are responded to below.

The requirements to which you refer are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in relevant part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight of the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction:

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weigh; of the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction . . .

The basic requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was part of Standard No. 207 as that standard was established as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 32 FR 2415, February 3, 1967. (The standard was later amended by revising certain other requirements, extending its application to additional vehicle types, adding requirements, and clarifying and restructuring the standard.)

As required by section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards were promulgated under a tight statutory deadline and here based on existing safety standards. Standard No. 207 was based on the Society of automotive engineers' (207) Recommended Practice J879, Passenger Car Front Seat and Seat Adjuster (November 1963), and on the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Standard No. 515/6a, one of a number of standards which were developed for Government vehicles.

With respect to the requirements at issue, section 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice J879 provided in relevant part:

3.1 Seat Adjusters and Seat Frame Combination--Each combination of seat adjusters and seat frame, together with their attachments, shall be capable of sustaining horizontal forward and rearward static load (L) equal to 20 times the weight of the fully trimmed seat. One-half of this load (L/2) shall be applied at points 8.00 in. above the seat frame rear attaching points as shown in Fig. 1. The 8.00 in. load application points represent the approximate vertical center of gravity of a fully trimmed passenger car front seat. . .

We have been advised by our technical staff that the requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was based on the forces involved in a 30 mph barrier impact test. Moreover, this requirement does not include any adjustment to take account of the increased loading on seat anchors that could result from passengers who are unrestrained impacting the seat in front of them in a frontal impact.

You may wish to contact the Society of Automotive Engineers for information concerning the development of their recommended practice.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 17, 1986

Chief Counsel Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Erika Jones: I was advised by Mr. Steve Oesch to forward my request for information to your attention.

I would like to know two features of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 207.

1. Was the 20G acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat based an a barrier impact test and if so at what speed.

2. Was the 20G acceleration taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors.

I will appreciate receiving this information as quickly as possible. there be any questions regarding this request, please call me collect at 677-V430.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Hubert J. Thomiszer, M.E., P.E Senior Mechanical Engineer

ID: 86-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (HMC)' requesting clarification of how the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would affect a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You explained that vehicles manufactured by HMC are currently imported and distributed i the United States by Hyundai Motor America. However, in February 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) to be sold under the Mitsubishi trademark. You asked if the vehicles sold by HMC to Hyumdai Motor America and Mitsubishi must separately comply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.

During the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirement, each manufacturer is required to certify that a certain percentage of its vehicles meet thy automatic restraint requirement. For example, for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987, a manufacturer must equip 10 percent of its vehicles with automatic restraints. On March 21, 1986, NHTSA adopted a final rule which affects how a vehicle manufactured by one company and sold by another is to be counted for the purposes of the phase-in. The rule permits manufacturers to determine by contract in whose fleet the vehicle would be counted. Thus, for example, HMC could provide by contract with Mitsubishi America that all of the vehicles HMC manufactures for Mitsubishi are to be counted as a part of HMC's fleet. Thus, under that contract, HMC would have to count all the vehicles it manufactures for sale to Hyundai Motor America and to Mitsubishi and ensure that 10 percent of that total are equipped with automatic restraints during the first year of the phase-in.

In the absence of a contract, NHTSA's final rule of March 21, 1986, adopted several rules of attribution. The one relevant to your situation is that a vehicle imported into the United States is attribute to its importer. Thus, in the absence of a contract between HMC and Mitsubishi, the vehicles imported by Mitsubishi from HMC would be counted in Mitsubishi's fleet and 10 percent of Mitsubishi's total fleet would have to have automatic restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 26, 1986

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea ("HMC"). We request clarification of 49 CFR Section 571.208 as it relates to a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities.

At present, motor vehicles manufactured by HMC are imported and distributed in the United States by Hyundai Motor America, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC. Commencing in February, 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 motor vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi America") under the Mitsubishi trademark. The vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America, however, will be substantially identical to the Hyundai Excel already being sold by Hyundai Motor America, except for some cosmetic differences, and will have HMC's own certification of compliance affixed to vehicles.

HMC requests your interpretation of FMVSS 208 as applies to Hyundai vehicles sold by both Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America. Based on our own analysis, and after some informal preliminary discussions with NHTSA's Legal Department, HMC believes that Hyundai vehicles sold by HMC to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America must separately con- form to FMVSS 208. Thus, for example, HMC believes that FMVSS 208 requires that 10% of 1987 model Hyundai vehicles sold by Hyundai Motor America and 10% of 1987 model Hyunlai vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America must each contain passive restraint systems.

Please advise to the proper interpretation of FMVSS 208 as it applies to Hyundai vehicles sold to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America.

Very truly yours,

Finbarr J. O'Niell Vice President and General Counsel

FJO'N/dd

ID: 86-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K.A. Ziomek -- Sales Representative, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/27/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Robert V. Potter (Std. 213). 3/17/89 letter from Robert V. Potter to NHTSA

TEXT:

Ms. K.A. Zionek Sales Representative TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division 61166 Van Dyke Washington, MI 48094

Dear Ms. Ziomek:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 5571.213). Specifically, you asked about the effects of an amendment that becomes effective August 12, 1986. I will address your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

First, you stated that your company is the manufacturer of a child restraint called the "Child Love Seat." A final rule published February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5335) amends Standard No. 213 to require all child seats equipped with a tether strap to pass the 30 mph test without attaching the tether strap. This requirement becomes effective August 12, 1986. Your letter states that you will stop manufacturing the Child Love Seat on August 12 as a result of this amendment. You asked whether your distributors could continue to sell Child Love Seats after August 12, 1986. The answer is yes.

In the preamble to the February 13, 1986 final rule, NHTSA stated the following:

The new requirement would apply only to child seats manufactured after the effective date of this rule. Child seat; manufactured before the effective date of this rule may be sold even if their tether strap must be attached to pass the 30 mph test. Hence, the agency does not see any reason for child seat dealers to be confused by this rule (51 FR 5337).

In accordance with this language, your dealers and distributors may continue to sell Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, until the inventories are depleted, even if these sales occur on or after August 12, 1986.

Your second question was which party would bear the liability for such sales. Since there is no violation of our requirements for selling Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, as explained above there is no liability to be borne by any party, unless, of course, the seats do not comply with the pre-August 12 version of the standard.

Your third question was how long TRW must continue to have replacement parts available for the Child Love Seat. There is no requirement in Standard No. 213 or any of our other regulations that child restraint manufacturers make replacement parts available for any child restraint. Since, your company was never required to make replacement parts available, it is free to stop offering replacement parts for Child Love Seats whenever you choose.

You should, however, be aware of your statutory responsibility to remedy any safety-related defects or noncompliances with the requirements of Standard No. 213. If either your company or this agency determines that the Child Love Seat contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with Standard No. 213, section 154 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(l)) requires you to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the purchaser. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) specifies that such remedy shall consist of either:

(1) Repairing the Child Love Seats so that they no longer have the defect or failure to comply; or

(2) Replacing the Child Love Seats with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint that does not have such defect or failure to comply.

Section 154 (a)(4) limits your obligation to remedy without charge to those Child Love Seats purchased by the first purchaser not more than 8 years before the determination is safe that those products contain a safety-related defect or failure to comply with Standard No. 213.

If a determination of a safety-related defect or noncompliance were made with respect to the Child Love Seats, your company's ability to exercise its statutory right to repair, rather than replace, such seats would be affected by the availability of replacement parts with which to make such repairs. You may wish to consider this when deciding how long your company will continue to have replacement parts available for Child Love Seats.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 2, 1985

Legal Office Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NHSTA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division is the manufacturer of the Child Love Seat and per your recent ruling we will discontinue the manufacturing of this seat on August 12, 1986.

TRW distributes the Child Love Seat through Century Products in the D.S. and Alkot Industries is Canada. We also distribute the Child Love Seat through GM, Honda, Accura, Ford of Canada, AMC and Chrysler.

TRW is concerned that after August 12, 1986 are our distributors able to sell this product? (delete their inventory) Where is the liability placed? How long must TRW continue to have replacement parts?

Any assistance in answering or other pertinent information relating to the above questions are appreciated and I look forward to your earliest response.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

R. A. Ziomek Sales Representative

KAZ/lw

ID: 86-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gary D. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Clark John Deere Tractor Works P.O. Box 3500 Waterloo, Iowa 50704-3500

Dear Mr. Clark:

This responds to your letter dated February 27, 1986, concerning your projected sale of a strip chassis for the class A motor home industry. The identifying information submitted in your letter is being referred to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards which keeps records of manufacturer identification in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566.

Under S114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. This agency does not require that a manufacturer's documents and test data, which form the basis for this certification, be submitted unless requested by the agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

27 Feb. 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Deere and Company will soon begin marketing a strip chassis suitable for the class A motor home industry. The chassis are designed for GVWRs of 16,000# and 18,000#. As an incomplete vehicle manufacture, we are aware of requirement testing such as FMVSS 105 and 124 and fuel emission testing by EPA and CARB.

I am uncertain as to our responsibility to present documentation to your office. Until word is received from you to do otherwise, we will document the FMVSS 105 and 124 tests internally. These documents and test data will be kept i our records department and will be made available upon written request from your office.

Sincerely,

Gary D. Clark O.E.M. Engineering (319/292-7162)

ID: 86-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Horton Imperial Comfort Corporation P.O. Box 28367 Detroit, MI 48228

Dear Mr. Horton:

This is in response to your letter asking for our agency to approve a safety belt comfort adjuster you wish to sell. The literature you enclosed with your letter shows that the device is a strap with a clamp on each end. One end of the device can be clamped on the lap portion of a lap/shoulder belt and the other end clamped on the shoulder portion of the belt. By adjusting the strap, a person can reposition the shoulder belt away from his or her neck and apparently can introduce slack into the belt as well. I hope the following information will explain how our regulations affect your device.

As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.

Your particular aftermarket product is not directly covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

The agency is also concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use your product to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt or reposition the shoulder belt too close to the edge of a person's shoulder and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the belt. The instructions you provide with your device do not warn users about the risks associated with introducing excessive slack or incorrectly repositioning the safety belt. We encourage you to provide more detailed guidance about the proper use of your device.

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

Sincerely:

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

To whom it may concern:

Imperial Comfort Corp. are asking if you would provide the necessary D.O.T. approval for this device which we have enclosed for you;

Please find in this package the information which we have provided for this devices approval.

P. Please reply to our application as soon as you possibly can.

Thank you,

Imperial Comfort Corp.

Enclosed

gdh

PACKAGE The seat belt comfort adjuster is made as following: It is a small elastic belt which has a clasp on each end and a slip lock adjustable buckle, which adjust the length.

The seat belt comfort adjuster operate as such: One end of the seat belt comfort adjuster is clapped to the cross waist belt of the seat belt. Then clasp the remaining loose end to the chest cross belt. Now you can adjust the cross harness chest belt from the neck and also relieve some of the pressure off the chest which the harness apply, to suit your comfort.

Imperial Comfort Corp.

gdh

If further information needed please contact us at (313) 273-2793.