ID: nht92-9.5

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gordon W. Didier, Esq. -- Butzel Long

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/92 from Gordon W. Didier to Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118), on behalf of your client, a manufacturer of automobile sunroofs. As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991 edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.50

DATE: January 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William E. Kenyon -- Mr. K's Original Headsaver, Patented Restraint Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 from William E. Kenyon to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6670)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter regarding a head restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affidavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be "federally approved as an after-market safety product." As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR S571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information.

The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its VEHICLE complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not

require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product.

Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code.

In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202.

Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations.

Attachments

NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of Standard No. 202, Head Restraints.

(Attachments omitted)

ID: nht92-9.51

DATE: January 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Sue Ellen Russell, Esq. -- Brand & Lowell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/24/91 from Sue Ellen Russell to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 24,1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter,these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is incompliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by

means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times these at weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.52

DATE: January 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/7/91 from Takashi Odaira to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6643)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the new dynamic requirements of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You noted that the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the Part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedure. You asked whether a test dummy should nonetheless be placed on the rear seat of such vehicles when conducting the specified dynamic test. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 includes the following language concerning the dynamic side impact requirements:

Part 572, subpart F test dummies are placed in the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car. However, the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger cars with a wheelbase greater than 130 inches, or to passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7.

Reading these two sentences together, it is our interpretation that a test dummy should not be placed in the rear outboard seating position of passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the part 572, subpart F dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7. While the first sentence states that the test dummies should be placed in both the front and rear outboard seating positions on the struck side of the car, that provision is limited by the sentence which immediately follows. That second sentence makes it clear that the rear seat requirements do not apply to certain vehicles with small rear seating areas. Since the sole purpose for placing a test dummy in the rear outboard seating position is to measure compliance with the dynamic side impact requirements, a test dummy should not be placed in the rear seating position of a passenger car for which the rear seat requirements do not apply.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.53

DATE: January 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tadoru Yamamoto -- Technical Administration Div., Hino Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 from Tadoru Yamamoto to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6648)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines "hood" as "any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment" (S3).

Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a "hood" as defined by Standard 113.

We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system.

Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood.

We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.54

DATE: January 13, 1992

FROM: Phil Gray -- Inventor, Westech U.S.A. Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ed Jettner

TITLE: Re: Child Shoulder Belt Positioning Device

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Firstly I would like to thank your staff especially Deirdre Fujita for all her help and the faxed letter she forwarded to me, I have enclosed a copy for your reference. Its nice to know that the little guy can still be heard in Washington. I read through the faxed letter and all the points that were brought up have been addressed and solved by my invention. If you would be so kind I would like to take a minute to give you a little background about myself.

My name is Phil Gray and I am an inventor, I have started a company Westech U.S.A. Inc. in Vermont to market my inventions.

One of my Inventions is a device that positions the car's Shoulder Belt in the correct position for children between 38 and 60 inches in height. Prior to the conception of the "CHILD-SAVER" there was no method for children to ride in a car using the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belt System in a safe and legal manner. Please refer to the accompanying product information.

The "CHILD-SAVER" has been designed to ensure the correct position of the Shoulder Belt up to the point of Impact. At the point of Impact the full weight of the child loads the Shoulder Belt holding it in the preset (correct) position during the Impact and Post Impact Stages of a collision. The designed "Break Away" Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot Section located at the top of the "CHILD-SAVER" is detached by the forces exerted on it at the point of impact thus allowing the "CHILD-SAVER" to rotate away from the child therefore preventing any possibility of contact with the child's head during the collision. With the position of the child's body at the point that the Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot "Breaks Away" there is no chance that the piece could possibly strike the child. This design has been proven effective with repeated Impact Crash Tests. I have enclosed a VHS tape of the Impact Test and some Test Results as well as some product samples.

With the "CHILD-SAVER" left unusable after a severe impact it is assured that it will be replaced as recommended by the manufacturer.

As the "CHILD-SAVER" is new technology that addresses and solves a Child Restraint problem that until now has not been dealt with, the only Standards that are available to test against are those for Child Safety Seats. It is expected that new standards will be written as this device proves it's worth in the market place.

All Impact Tests were run at 30 mph which is the accepted standard. The force of Impact in each test was equal to 20 G's, meaning the weight of a 501b child would be equal to 1000lbs during the collision.

Impact Crash Testing has clearly shown the Life Saving benefits of a Shoulder Belt that is correctly positioned prior to a collision. The same tests have also illustrated in dramatic fashion the Fatal Injuries inflicted upon the child when the Shoulder Belt is incorrectly positioned around the neck area.

Pertaining to the letter that was to faxed me by Deirdre.

i. Now that the technology exists it would be logical to develop a safety Standard that would require that the Seat Belt System to be operationally safe for children who are to large for Car Safety Seats or Booster Seats but to small for the present Shoulder Belts.

ii. I assure you that Westech U.S.A. will comply with Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act.

iii. Under normal operating conditions the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belts do not comply with Section S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208. However with the installation of the CHILD- SAVER compliance is achieved.

iv. With the installation of the CHILD-SAVER the length of Shoulder Belt used is increased by only one inch. It should be pointed out that the increased length is not in the form of loose belt, but used to tightly traverse the length of the CHILD-SAVER.

v. It is unknown if the CHILD-SAVER violates Section 108(a)(2)(A) for it does modify the position of the Shoulder Belt but by doing so enhances its performance by eliminating a fatal injury to the child which would normally occur

Could you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request.

ID: nht92-9.55

DATE: January 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John H. Heinrich -- District Director of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: Case No. 92-2704-00015

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/05/91 from John H. Heinrich and Kathleen M. Tobin to the Office of Chief Counsel, DOT (OCC 6758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 5, 1991, enclosing a petition for relief from the forfeiture of "200 Spinner Wheel Nuts" seized by the Customs Service as violative of 49 CFR Sec. 571.211. The petitioner expresses the opinion that the wheel nuts should be exempt from DOT regulations, stressing safety considerations and the need to replace worn parts on vehicles manufactured in the 1950's. You have also enclosed a copy of the petitioner's own parts list that identifies the wheel nuts as part of a conversion kit, intended to replace disc wheels with wire wheels.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR 571.211, precludes, for use on passenger cars, wheel nuts that incorporate winged projections. The chrome wheel nuts depicted in the Moss Motors catalogue page which you enclosed (Parts Nos. 200-210 and 200-220) clearly incorporate winged projections, and are the type of wheel nuts that Standard No. 211 addresses and prohibits. As such, they may not be imported for sale in the United States.

We have discounted petitioner's safety arguments. This is the first allegation in the nearly 24 years that the standard has been in effect that the spinners are required to replace original equipment, implying that there is no acceptable substitute that would conform with Standard No. 211. In our view, no justification has been shown for granting the petition.

ID: nht92-9.56

DATE: January 7, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe S. Brito -- Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 (est) from Joe S. Brito to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to INDEPENDENTLY certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing

requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.57

DATE: January 7, 1992

FROM: Thomas J. Magnan -- Sergeant, Traffic Safety Division, Metropolitan Police Department, City of St. Louis, Mo.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: "Hella" brand Position Indicator Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas Magnan (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I saw a demonstration of the new "Hella" brand Position Indicator Lamp at a safety show I attended in British Columbia, in September 1991.

I have since contacted a Hella distributor in St. Louis, Mo with questions on where this may be purchased and the price of the item. He informs me that Hella of Germany has told him that to sell or install this item on a vehicle in the United States is against the law, as it has not as yet been approved for sale or use in this country. I then contacted a Mr. Scott Toivanen at 1-604-687-7779 with the Canadian Distributor OBIRON ENTERPRISES INC. Mr. Toivanen informed me that he has attended meeting with representatives from this country, specifically NHTSA and DOT-OMC, and both agencies approved of this device, so long as the maximum vehicle width was not exceeded. I contacted Mr. Kevin Cavey at NHTSA, who was reportedly at one of these meetings and Mr. Cavey told me he didn't know what I was talking about, and suggested I write to you.

Please advise as to whether this item may be used on vehicles in the United States, providing the maximum vehicle width of 102.36 inches is not exceeded.

Enclosed please find related information on the product.

Attachments (Text and graphics omitted):

Brochure entitled IPS Corporation Introduces the Position Indicator Lamp. Indicates that the lamp is distributed in Alberta and British Columbia by Obiron Enterprises Inc.

Copy of a letter from Claus Bergmeier, President of International Product Specialities (IPS), announcing a new safety marker lamp for commercial vehicle application.

Copy of a report, dated 2/5/91, from the Canadian Standards Association, containing the results of examinations and tests of the IPS position indicator lamp. Demonstrates compliance with applicable SAE standards.

ID: nht92-9.58

DATE: January 7, 1992

FROM: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen C. Bartch (A39; Part 567; Std. 301)

TEXT:

We propose to convert the Ford E-series vans to our 4X4 drive system; however, the tank in the 1992 vans interferes with our transfer case placement.

After much consideration and examining other Ford tank arrangements on 4X4 vehicles, we came to the conclusion that to keep certification costs down and still show due-care in reference to FMVSS 301, we should either:

A. find a tank manufacturer that can build a tank with identical attachments as the OEM tank, or B. modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference.

We found a tank supplier who can manufacture the tank to our specifications, so we can pursue both options.

The question that some of our customers are asking is about the legality of our fuel tank retrofit in regards to FMVSS 301. Could you summarize in writing our responsibilities regarding FMVSS 301 and state that we are not required by law to do crash testing on our vehicles?

Thank you for your cooperation and willingness to accommodate us.