ID: nht94-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 16, 1994

FROM: Dimitrios Kallieris -- Associate Professor and Chief Division, Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics

TO: The Director, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration,

TITLE: Re: Enquiry regarding 571.212 Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting.

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Dimitrios Kallieris (A43; Std. 212)

TEXT: I am writing to enquire about the exact definition of parts of section S5.1 and S5.2 in 571.212 Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. We have undertaken 30 m.p.h. crash tests with freshly adhered windscreens to test their adherence. Two Hybrid III dumm ies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions and each was restrained by a three-point belt and air bag. We would like to know whether these test conditions are covered by section S5.1 or S5.2. Furthermore, we are not sure whether the sect ion describes tests in which windshield displacement is measured dynamically, i.e during the crash, or statically, i.e after the crash. If dynamic measurement is required, what is stipulated by the standard regarding measurement technique, e.g. accelero meters or high-speed film/video. Could you please clarify this situation for us.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Dimitrios Kallieris.

ID: nht94-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1994

FROM: Ed Irvine -- Midwest Conservation Systems, Inc.

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/11/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Ed Irvine (A43; Std. 121)

TEXT: IS IT A REQUIREMENT OF COMMERCIAL UTILITY TRAILERS, THAT FOR EXAMPLE MAY HAVE A BACKHOE TRACTOR, LEAVE THE NEW TRAILER MANUFACTURER WITH A EMERGENCY BREAKAWAY SYSTEM? (SECTION [ILLEGIBLE WORD]) WE HAVE A CORPORATE CUSTOMER WHO IS PURCHASING NEW TRAILERS FROM A MANUFACTURER THAT CLAIMS THEY MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH THEIR BREAKAWAY SYSTEM WHICH IS BASICALLY ONLY A BATTERY IN A BOX. MOST GENERALLY THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM IS NOT CHECKED BY THE OPERATOR AND MOST GENERALLY DEAD WHEN [ILLEGIBLE WORD]. THE CORPORAT E CUSTOMER WOULD LIKE TO BUY THE TRAILERS WITH OUT THEIR BREAKAWAY SYSTEM SO THEY CAN OUTFIT THE TRAILERS WITH OUR SOLAR ENERGIZED BREAKAWAY SYSTEMS. THANKS! ED

Enclosure (Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.34

ID: nht94-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 23, 1994

FROM: Andrea Seastrand -- California State Assemblywoman

TO: John Womack, Acting Chief, NHTSA

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/6/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ANDREA SEASTRAND (A42; STD. 119)

TEXT: Enclosed is a copy of a Casework Intake Form on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Eric Brandt. Please provide me with information on how to best advise Mr. Brandt and address him personally in your response. Please direct your response to my San Luis Obisp o district office.

Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht94-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1994

FROM: Frank Lautenberg -- U.S. Senator

TO: Susan Slye -- Congressional Affairs, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/28/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO FRANK LAUTENBERG (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Dr. Mark Bauman concerning an automobile courtesy signal.

Please review the issues raised by Dr. Bauman and advise me on your findings in the matter. Please direct your response to Andrea Edwards at my Barrington office.

Thank you for your assistance in this case.

538 Justice Drive

Marlton, NJ 08053-5345

August 31, 1994

The Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg 208 White Horse Pike Barrington, NJ 08007

Dear Senator Lautenberg,

I had the pleasure of speaking with your very able assistant, Ms. Andrea Edwards, last Friday regarding the letter which was forwarded in response to my assistance on our Automobile Courtesy Signal. Enclosed please find a copy of our schematic/installat ion instructions for the signal (we do have a working prototype of the signal). This, in addition to the material which I have sent you earlier this year, should hopefully be sufficient for initial review by the appropriate federal agency.

Thank you and your staff very much for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to a favorable response.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mark L. Bauman

AUTOMOBILE COURTESY SIGNAL INSTALLATION

(TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED) 538 Justice Drive

Marlton, NJ 08053-5345

August 18, 1994

The Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg 208 White Horse Pike Barrington, NJ 08007

Dear Senator Lautenberg,

I am in receipt of your letter of August 5 with the enclosed response from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I am somewhat confused about some of the comments made by Mr. Hart, the acting Administrator.

First, he indicates that his agency is not authorized to approve or endorse specific devices and that each manufacturer must certify that its equipment meets applicable safety standards issued by that agency. If there are standards, could we attempt to "test" our signal based upon these standards with information that we already have? If there is such a "self-certification" process, do we have to already be a manufacturer in order to see if our signal will be certified as safe? That would be cost-pro hibitive at this point unless we could be given some way to test our signal based upon our working prototype and other pertinent data.

Secondly, Mr. Hart states that there are many suggestions for auxiliary signal devices but states further that there is no objective or scientific evidence that these devices will result in a net safety improvement. I am willing, as a doctor trained in objectivity, to concede that objective data is important in establishing a set of conditions. However, if one observed improvements in medicine, science, etc. throughout history it would be apparent that there are many situations that are simply obvious !! While I would also concede that we don't necessarily have the most perfect solution to this problem, there is no doubt that something should be done to cut down on intersection accidents or potential accidents and we feel that our signal at least has as valid a reason for existence as any other. There are many such instances for this need every day; the conglomeration of statistics should be able to confirm, while at least not denying, such evidence.

Mr. Hart eventually indicates that such signal devices could confuse other motorists rather than assisting them and that our device may not be any better than any others. Would it not be beneficial to be able to test such a device objectively or at leas t observe it rather than make such an assumption without observation?

I sent a letter to Vice President Gore last fall about such similar matters because he reportedly believes that there is too much bureaucracy in our government. He eventually replied, agreeing with me. How can this nation advance if there are such rest rictive regulations everywhere?

If you have any suggestions as to how I can proceed please be so kind as to inform me. You are, after all, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee!!

Thank you and your staff very much for your assistance in this matter.

Dr. Mark L. Bauman

ID: nht94-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 28, 1994

FROM: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #207 Seating Systems

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/23/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A42; STD. 207); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/26/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN L. DUNCAN

TEXT: Request for Comment From Chief Counsel:

Earlier this year, the Agency amended F.M.V.S.S. #208 for seat belt comfort and fit by requiring in the future that designated seating positions have either an adjustable "D" ring or seat belts integrated into the seat (integrated seats). This letter is directed to an issue concerning integrated seats. An integrated seat is defined for now as a seat or seat system that the seat belts are located on the seating structure, in an all-belts-to-seat application; the pelvic portion of the belt may be attache d to the seat bottom, seat slides, or seat riser, while the "D" ring and shoulder belt is actually attached to the back of the seat itself.

Our firm is a manufacturer of seating systems for light trucks manufactured in more than one stage, and is considering the manufacture of integrated seating systems.

The questions we pose, which may already be before the Agency, are ones that relate to testing requirements for integrated seating. Referring to F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2.1, which states:

"SEAT ADJUSTMENT. Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2."

Subparagraph S4.2 refers to specific static requirements for seating systems. When a seat belt system, such as those on integrated seats, are attached to the seating system, then the static loads of F.M.V.S.S. #207, S4.2, and F.M.V.S.S. #210, S4.2, are p erformed simultaneously.

ID: nht94-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1994

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott and Karas

TO: John Womak, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Our Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/8/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO SAMSON HELFGOTT (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: I received your letter of July 20, 1994 for which I thank you (a copy of which is enclosed for your reference). At the time we had requested information with respect to the utilization of the red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sid e of trucks and other vehicles. At the time, you indicated that we did not state the number and candela of the lamps and how they would be arranged along the side of the vehicle.

I now enclose an information sheet with respect to the lighting indicating what we have in mind for placement on the sides of the vehicle. The side front of the vehicle will have only yellow lights and the side rear only red. The red and yellow ligh ts will be placed in conjunction along the center of the side of the vehicle. The running lights are to be in keeping with NHTSA and/or EEC specifications.

As we previously explained, during normal vehicle operation the amber (yellow) side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber (yellow) lights are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated.

I would appreciate your comments whether you believe this system would be in violation of any of the Standards. I look forward to receiving your reply.

ENCLOSURE

TANKER TRAILER SIDE SAFETY SIGNALIGHT SYSTEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH NHTSA THREE LIGHT STANDARD 108 RS (RIGHT SIDE) MAJORITY OF IMPACTS LS (LEFT SIDE) BALANCE

Auxiliary Lighting System designed for sides of HAZMAT Tankers to comply or accomplish a no objections from NHTSA Standard 108

[TEXT OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

ID: nht94-4.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 29, 1994

FROM: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR Part 583 - Automobile Parts Content Labeling Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO ALBERTO NEGRO (PART 583; REDBOOK (2))

TEXT: I am writing to ask that you verify whether the 1000 unit threshold of 49 CFR 583.5(g) applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectively, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S. p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars.

I thank you for your consideration and I remain at your disposal for all additional information that you require.

ID: nht94-4.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J Quigley

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/1/94: Fax from Richard Quigley to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your request for reconsideration of our July 15, 1994 interpretation letter on Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. In that letter, we stated that a drawing you provided would not meet the requirement in S5.6.1(e) of the standard that m otorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. You enclosed a new drawing and ask whether it meets S5.6.1(e). The answer is no.

The new version of the drawing consists of three figures that you believe constitute the symbol "DOT." Your new drawing continues to incorporate a corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O." As explained in our July 15, 1994 letter, because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O" introduces ambiguity as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet. Thus, the new version of the drawing you provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218.

I hope this answers your question.

ID: nht95-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Denise Jones -- NiMi Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM DENISE JONES TO DEE FUJITA (OCC 10927)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff asking about safety regulations, particularly for flammability resistance, for a device you call a "Toddler Traveler pillow." According to promotional literature you sent with your letter, th e Toddler Traveler pillow is used with a child booster seat to provide "padded comfort and support" to a child sleeping in the booster. The pillow provides a surface the child could lean on while sleeping.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, howe ver, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The followi ng represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

Currently there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Toddler Traveler pillow. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for us e in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pillow that is used with a child booster seat. Our standard for flammability resistance, FMVS S 302, applies to new motor vehicles and to new child restraint systems. It does not apply to child restraint accessory items.

While no FMVSS applies to the Toddler Traveler pillow, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the reca ll and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed a copy of those defect provisions, as well as an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that yo ur product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Toddler Traveler pillow would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "ma kes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in @ 30122 can install a Toddler Traveler pillow if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including Standard 302 for flammability resis tance.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Before closing, we would like to comment on a further issue, one that you and Ms. Fujita discussed on the telephone. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Toddler Traveler pillow as being suitable for use with children a ges "18 months to 4 years." We believe this description is potentially confusing concerning the use of booster seats by young children. Booster seats are intended to be used as a transition to safety belts by older children who have outgrown convertible seats (ideally, over 40 pounds and 4 years). A booster seat is not designed to restrain young children, and under a requirement we recently adopted, cannot now be recommended for children under 30 pounds. Stating "18 months to 4 years" may be mistaken to imply that, with your pillow, a booster seat could be used to restrain a child as young as 18 months. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, we suggest that the phrase on recommended use of the pillow should refer to older children, such as those "ov er 4 years."

One further note in closing. You said that a year ago, Ms. Fujita told you "there are no codes to govern" your product. Ms. Fujita is concerned that you might believe you were given an oral interpretation of how our requirements apply to your product. Please note that we cannot give oral interpretations. Ms. Fujita provided you a copy of an interpretation we'd issued in the past on a child seat pillow accessory, while indicating that an interpretation of which requirements apply to your product must be from us in writing. (This letter comprises that interpretation.) We regret any confusion on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.