ID: nht81-3.3

DATE: 07/31/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. J. B. Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 779 Chanute, Kansas 66720

Dear Mr. Fitzjohn:

This responds to your June 2, 1981, letter asking about the requirements for reservoir tanks for air brake systems. In particular, you ask whether section S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 are the only Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of the reservoirs.

The two sections that you referenced in your letter are the only sections specifying requirements for the construction of reservoirs for air brake systems. For additional guidance in the construction of reservoirs, you should refer to SAE Standard J10b titled "Automotive and Off Highway Air Brake Reservoir Performance and Identification Requirements." This standard will provide you with the prevailing industry practice in the construction of reservoirs.

You should be aware that you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if there were any defect relating to motor vehicle safety in your product.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 2, 1981

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Gentlemen:

As a manufacturer of pressurized containers, we from time to time are asked to design and or manufacture components for over the road vehicles; and as such have been approached recently by a prospective customer to manufacture a reservoir under the provisions of the "Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121." However, this is where the problem arises. The standard as written does not specify in detail the construction of the reservoir, with respect to materials to be used or the wall thickness of the tank, or list a reference to any other document to which this information is found.

It is imparative for us to manufacture components in the least expensive way and still maintiin a high degree of quality. Therefore, to exceed provisions of a standard only enhances the construction costs.

We would appreciate an opinion on the clarity of sections S5.1.2 through S5.2.1.5 as to whether the construction of said reservoir meet only the provisions of sections S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3; or are there additional requirements not contained therein.

We appreciate any consideration to this matter you can give us in a short amount of time.

Respectfully,

Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc.

CDF/pac

ID: nht81-3.30

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding the use of flexible nylon tubes in vacuum braking systems. You ask whether such plastic hoses would qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" for purposes of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We recently received a letter asking this identical question from Tokai Rubber Industries of Japan. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. I believe that it will answer all of your questions. You will see from the letter that these nylon tubes cannot qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" and must comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Sincerely,

ENC.

TOKAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

April 20, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Subject: Questionnaire Concerning the Application of All Plastic Vacuum Brake Hoses

Dear Sirs,

Our company, Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. is supplying vacuum brake hoses to Japanese automotive industries, which have both met the requirements of the standards of FMVSS-106(1974), S9 and been approved by your department.

As you know, it has began to make use of the variety of vacuum brake hose instead of conventional rubber vacuum hose in application to brake systems.

Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. has been developing and making plans for the supply of several kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses which are composed of a single material and are molded in an exact, set shape for the specific application. We are intending to utilize two(2) flexible nylon tubes for a vacuum braking system, and our concept of assemblies is the following:

(Graphics omitted)

We have found, however, that these plastic vacuum brake hose does not meet several requirements of the FMVSS-106, S-9 due to the feat that their characteristics are different from the conventional type vacuum brake hoses, and therefore we would like to clarify the following points: (1) The molded plastic vacuum brake hose apparently does not meet the above mentioned requirements, such as Bend (S9.-2.7.) and Deformation (S9.2.10) of the FMVSS-106, S9. Is there any alternative standard or requirement?

(2) Based on the notice for amendment to the definition in the Standard No.106-74, a definition for 'vacuum tubing connector' is added. is our nylon flexible tube and assembly indicated above in a category of 'vacuum tubing connector'?

(3) If so, there is no federal rule concerning vacuum brake hoses to use in a vacuum brake booster system. Can we design a vacuum brake hose and assembly only based on manufacturer's performance standards ?

I thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

John Y. Yonezana -- Engineer - Development

cc: Mr. Sugimoto, Tokai

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

April 2, 1981

John Y. Yonezawa -- Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

Dear Mr. Yonezawa:

Reference is made to your letter of February 20, 1981 in which you have requested our interpretation of the FMVSS-106 as it addresses brake hose and vacuum tubing connectors.

We have reviewed your questions and have tried to interpret the standard as it applies to your application and have contacted Mr. Vern Bloom at NHTSA for his interpretation of the 106 standard. Mr. Bloom (Illegible Words) your questions directly - the Office of Chief Counsel at NHTSA for a formal interpretation of the standard. This would preclude any misinterpretation which could be very costly to your firm.

AAMVA, as agent of the states and provinces, must use the FMVSS-106 for the certification of brake hose. If it is determined by NHTSA that the hose or device is not subject to the FMVSS-106, then it is not necessary to have it certified by us.

When NHTSA gives Tokai Rubber Industries their interpretation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our reference.

We are sorry that we were not able to answer your questions in this matter.

Sincerely yours, George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

September 30, 1981 Our Ref. T-859/TT/tm

Messrs. Office of Chief Council

Dear sirs

RE: Inquiry to your interpretation on our plastic made vacuum brake hose through AAMVA

We are one of leading automobile hoses manufacturers in Japan, and developing new material's vacuum brake hose which made from Poly-amide resin to replace from conventional rubber hose.

However, you specify that vacuum brake hose must be conformed to all items of requirement in FMVSS 106, our nlyon made vacuum hose (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call it as "tube") don't satisfy S9.2.10 Deformation test and S10.6 Bend test.

This is the common problem of plastic made vacuum brake hose which developed by several manufacturers, we've asked the interpretation of yours against the adoption of this new material's hose to AAMVA.

Mr. George Walton Associate Director of AAMVA might request your interpretation to our inquiry that whether Nylon vacuum brake hose has a possibility of acceptance as vacuum brake hose which connect between rigid points or not.

We are awaiting your interpretation of Nylon vacuum brake hose, please inform us.

Enclosed please find the copies of our letter to Mr. Walton. Although we were asking him in our letter, it was also the question to you.

We must excuse our sudden request, but if you kindly inform us your interpretation or advise, it would be much appreciated for us.

We are looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain,

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept.

Encl: Copies of our inquiry letter addressed to Mr. Walton AAMVA

c.c. to Mr. Walton

June 3, 1981 Our Ref. T-809/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Assistant Director Safety Equipment Service, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton Much appreciated for your kind reply in your letter dated April 7 to our question on plastic made Vacuum brake hose.

You've kindly enclosed latest FMVSS-106-74 and suggested us to carry the test in compliance with the standard out.

As the result, we have found that our plastic vacuum tube (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call this "tube") is conformed to the requirements such as High temperature resistance, Low temperature resistance, Ozone resistance, Burst strength, Vacuum and Swell test, but not conformed to Bend and Deformation tests.

Since we use Polyamide 11 material (fewer plasticizer contained), Kink phenomenon was happened when our vacuum tube was bent as way of bend test as specified. It was more than the collapse, completely yielded at the A point. In the Deformation test, our 3/8 inch I.D. tube was only conformed to the specification, but larger I. D. tubes 1/2 inch were not conformed.

Our technicals insist that so far as we use polyamide material to make the tube, it is inevitable to ocurr Kink phenomenon and inferior deformation restorative rate compared to rubber tube.

Notwithstanding such weak point, plastic tubes (mainly it is consisted with Nylon material) are available to automobile use. We hear Nylon made vacuum tube has been adopted to European vehicles before long and we can find particular specification of plastic tubing for its nominal diameter, end fittings and its assembly way in S9, Requirement-Vacuum brake hose of FMVSS 106.

In case of the appearance of developed products made by new material, it is usual to adapt the specification to new material, we believe.

Therefore we would like to ask you followings,

1. When your country import the vehicles which are installed Nylon made vacuum brake hose from Europe, you can accept them or not, we wonder. Because, European Nylon tube may also have inferior property against severe bend compared to conventional rubber made hose, we are afraid.

If you have special treatment for them, please inform us.

2. As FMVSS specifies particularly for plastic tube or assembly, we expect, you AAMVA or NHTSA might have some adaptation to introduce these new developed plastic vacuum brake tube, or your administrators may be planning to adapt existent specification or requirement to such a plastic made tube.

If so, could you please inform us such a tendency?

We are sorry to trouble you again, but if you would inform us your situation or tendency, it would be much helpful for us.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept., MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 7, 1981 Our Ref. T-826/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton

Thank you so much for your kind answer and exertion to our question.

At the moment, we don't yet receive any interpretation from NHTSA, unfortunately.

One of our manufacturers of these sort of tube interprets that vacuum brake hose is not fixed between swinging part as like as hydraulic brake hose, only for connecting between stationary parts such as engine to cleaner. Therefore vacuum brake hose can be regarded as rigid piping. If so, Nylon vacuum brake hose is not required severe flexibility and severe bending.

We are not sure that his interpretation is acceptable with you or not, but we think, there is some truth in what he says as far as Nylon vacuum hose connect between stationary parts.

Sorry to trouble you so often, but could you please address his interpretation to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

Enclosed pleased find a piece of V. W. Golf GII Vacuum hose with plastic made check value for your reference.

We are looking forward to hearing from you and are always appreciating for your favour.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

Encl: a piece of sample

ID: nht81-3.31

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - New York

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1981 letter enclosing correspondence from Mrs. Barbara Stephens asking about extending the seat spacing in a school bus that is designed to transport handicapped children. You ask for general guidance in this area.

First, let me say that the safety standards apply to manufacturers of vehicles as well as those individuals that alter new motor vehicles. Further, repair businesses are not permitted to render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. On the other hand, nothing prohibits an individual from rendering inoperative the compliance of his or her own vehicle with any safety standard.

In specific reference to seat spacing in school buses, two general rules apply. First, seat spacing is not regulated in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, any modification of seat spacing in these vehicles is permissible. Second, in vehicles with GVWR's in excess of 10,000 pounds, seat spacing is regulated, and a manufacturer may not produce a vehicle whose spacing exceeds the specifications set in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, a repair business may not affect the seat spacing in a way that would violate the standard. An owner, however, may change the spacing in his or her own vehicle.

The agency has specifically provided for the transportation of the handicapped by allowing the installation of side-facing seats in school vehicles designated for handicapped transportation. We would suggest that this is a more suitable approach than extending seat spacing. By extending seat spacing, a school would be taking its vehicles out of compliance with the safety standards. In the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles, the school might be subject to unnecessary liability for having made these modifications to its vehicles.

I hope that this will be of use to you in advising schools of the Federal requirements, and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

SINCERELY,

NEW YORK STATE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

September 8, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We recently received the attached request and contacted a member of your organization (Mr. Robert Williams) to determine the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards once a vehicle reaches the users hands.

Since Medical Motor Service intended to modify the vehicle after taking title, it was determined that the standards did not apply since they are designed for manufacturers and manufacturers' representatives.

In discussing this situation, it was decided that we should send you a copy of the request since your organization is in the process of analyzing needs for handicapped transportation. We would appreciate your reactions and thoughts concerning the proposed modification. It is quite possible that similar circumstances might arise in the future and since we have no substantive guidelines to follow, your research in this general area might provide us with some input that will enable us to better cope with these situations.

We have already advised the company officials that there are no restrictions that would deny them the right to modify their vehicle so we are not delaying this operation in anyway while your review process takes place. Thank you for any help you can provide in this area.

JOHN H. SHAFER, Director Traffic and Safety Division

BY

MARTEN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ATTACH.

CC: BARBARA M. STEPHENS, EXECUTIVE DIR, MEDICAL MOTOR SERVICES; G. HUSSONG, TRAFFIC & SAFETY, REGION

ID: nht81-3.32

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Century Motor Coach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of September 15, 1981, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's certification requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Your specific question was whether an alterer has to certify that the vehicle, as altered, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards affected by the alterations as of the date of the completion of the alterations or as of the date of the manufacture of the original vehicle. As explained below, an alterer may, at his or her option, choose either date.

The agency's certification regulations are set forth in Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Section 567.7 of the regulation applies to persons who alter certified vehicles. Section 567.7 specifies the content of the certification statement that must be affixed to the vehicle by the alterer. The portion of the regulation pertinent to your question is section 567.7(a) which provides that the alterer must state:

"This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alterations and in effect in (month, year)." The second date shall be no earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle, and no later than the date alterations were completed . . . .

Thus, the regulation allows an alterer the option of choosing either the date of original manufacture or the date of completion of the alterations as the date for determining which safety standards apply.

As you requested, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Section 4.2.2 specifies the requirements applicable to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1976.

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

ENCLS.

ID: nht81-3.33

DATE: 11/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Semperit of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of October 13, 1981, asking whether tire tread labels required under the. Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards must continue to be affixed to tires once applicable UTQG grades are added to sidewall molds for the tires. The UTQG regulation contemplates that tire grading information will be made available to consumers simultaneously through a variety of means, including tread labels (49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), sidewall molding (49 CFR @ 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(A)), and leaflets available at the point of sale (49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the regulation was recently amended to permit tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall at any time up to six months after introduction of a new tire line (46 FR 41514, August 17, 1981), this change in no way affected the obligation imposed by @ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) that UTQG tread labels be affixed to all replacement tires to which the regulation applies. Thus, once the sidewall molding requirement takes effect for a line of tires, the regulation requires that UTQG information be displayed on the tires both by means of sidewall molding and by labels attached to the tread surface.

ID: nht81-3.34

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1981, asking for our concurrence that front clearance lamps "located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108."

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 "to indicate the overall width" of a vehicle, and to be "as near the top thereof as practicable." As you noted, NHTSA has commented before that the indication of overall width is the primary function of clearance lamps, with a secondary purpose of indicating overall height. However, because trailers are not required to have identification lamps on their front, the secondary purpose of clearance lamps on trailers is important, especially if the top of the trailer is substantially higher than that of the truck tractor towing it.

You have stated that the top of the typical front bulkhead is 8 to 9 feet above the ground, and the identification lamps of truck tractors are typically 10 feet above the ground. We will assume also that the tractor's clearance lamps are also typically 10 feet above the ground. You have also stated that the mounting height of truck tractor rear view mirrors and bulkhead-mounted clearance lamps are essentially the same, and that as a result "drivers remove the bulb from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps."

The determination of practicability is one that is made by the manufacturer of the trailer. NHTSA will accept a determination that mounting of clearance lamps at the top of the bulkhead is not practicable if such lamps are reflected into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror. But if the configuration of a trailer with a permanent front bulkhead is such that the clearance lamps may be located at the top of the bulkhead frame without interfering with the vision of the truck tractor's operator, that location would appear to be "practicable" within the meaning of Standard No. 108 and the situation your letter addresses.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

October 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Interpretation of the Location of Front Clearance Lamps on Platform Trailers with Permanent Bulkheads

Dear Mr. Berndt: TTMA requests your concurrence that the location of front clearance lamps located at the frame level (about 50 inches above the ground) on platform trailers with permanent front bulkheads conforms with FMVSS 108.

Platform trailers are sold in three configurations: (1) without front bulkheads, (2) with removable front bulkheads, and (3) with permanent front bulkheads. Often platform trailers without front bulkheads will be built for stock and placed on a dealers lot. A customer may then purchase the new trailer and request that a bulkhead be added to the trailer. A customer may also bring to the dealer a used platform trailer and request that a permanent bulkhead be welded to the trailer.

The structural framing of the front bulkhead would require that the front clearance lamps, if mounted on the front bulkhead, be located about 8 inches inboard of the front corner of main frame location used for clearance lamps on platform trailers without front bulkheads.

Table II of FMVSS 108 states that the purpose of the front clearance light is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. NHTSA by interpretation (letter of 2/5/74 to Evan Hammond, Trailmobile) has stated that the primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Front bulkheads typically range in height from 48 to 60 inches (4 to 5 ft.), placing the top of the bulkhead about 100 to 112 inches (8 to 9 ft.) above the ground. The identification lamps on the truck tractor are typically 118 inches (10 ft.) above the ground.

The side view mirror of a truck tractor is typically mounted about 85 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. Due to the frame around the front bulkhead of the platform trailer, the front clearance lamp would be located about 12 inches (1 ft.) below the top of the bulkhead or 88 inches (7 ft.) above the ground. This location results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes by way of the side view mirror.

An examination of platforms with permanent bulkheads reveals that drivers remove the bulbs from the clearance lamps or place tape over the lamps. TTMA contends that a location which results in the lamp shining into the driver's eyes is not a practical location and may indeed result in a safety hazard.

Some bulkheads are made with the provision for fastening a tarpaulin. NHTSA, in an interpretation regarding tarps on bulk commodity trailers (letter of 5/2/69 to K. L. Mathews, Reliance Trailer & Truck Company), stated that the clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practical to clear the bottom edge of the tarp. It is assumed that this interpretation would also apply to the location of clearance lamps on platform trailer front bulkheads. The need for attaching tarpaulins results in the clearance lamps being located as much as 30 inches below the top of the bulkhead or about 70 inches (6 ft.) above the ground.

NHTSA has issued an interpretation of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 108 (letter of 3/22/74 to TTMA) stating that front clearance lamps may be mounted on the lower front rail of platform trailers with removable front bulkheads. Since a removable front bulkhead looks similar to a permanent bulkhead and serves the same function, it is TTMA's contention that they be treated similarly with regard to location of front clearance lamps. This interpretation follows the reasoning used by NHTSA (letter of 3/10/81 to TTMA) that the function of a permanent dolly and its towbar are identical in function with that of a converter dolly and its towbar and there is no reason to distinguish one from the other for purpose of computation of overall length and the requirement for an intermediate side marker lamp.

TTMA concludes that the front clearance lamps on platform trailers with and without front bulkheads should be located at the corner of the frame rail to satisfy the requirement that the lamp indicate the trailer's overall width, that this is as high as is practical since a higher location would create a safety hazard for the driver, and that a permanent bulkhead serves the same function as a demountable bulkhead which is exempted from a clearance lamp height requirement.

Donald W. Vierimaa Director of Engineering

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.35

DATE: 11/10/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Taiyo Trading USA Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operated door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.

If your device 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. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be 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, which states in relevant 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.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. You may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.

ENC.

June 17, 1981

Chief Council DOT-NHTSA

Dear sir:

We wish to import the enclosed diagramed zerox copied manually operated door opener from Japan to the United States markets.

The door opener is installed on the driver's side. The door opener is independently installed and is not operated by a motor, hydraulic units, nor attached to the engine of the car. All operation is operated and controlled manually. It is highly recommended for passenger cars and taxis, where the driver does not have to get out of the cars each time to open the door.

Before proceeding with the importation of the item to the United States, we are anxious to gather and learn all the regulations and involvements, we may face. We will gladly submit a sample, for your inspection.

We certainly will appreciate it very much, if you will forward us all the necessary application forms and informations.

Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration you have afforded us. We will be looking forward to your early response.

T. FUMIMA, PRESIDENT TAIYO TRADING USA INC.

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.36

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 17, 1981, requesting NHTSA's confirmation that certain small, utility-type vehicles to be produced by General Motors would be classified as "light trucks" for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. In your letter you point out that these future vehicles, at least in base form excluding optional rear seats, would have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume, a criterion for classifying vehicles as light trucks under our regulations.

As you correctly note, SAE Recommended Practice J1100a specifies that cargo and passenger volumes are to be determined on the basis of a "base" vehicle, i.e., one without optional equipment. Further, EPA regulations set forth in 40 CFR 600.315-79(c) provide that all dimensions and volumes are to be determined from base vehicles without options, for purposes of grouping vehicles in classes of comparable vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, neither the SAE Practice nor the EPA provision explicitly apply to the determination of cargo-carrying volume for utility vehicles under our vehicle classification regulations in 49 CFR Part 523. Those regulations are silent on the issue of the inclusion of options for determining interior volume.

Nevertheless, to achieve uniform treatment for passenger automobiles and light trucks and to reduce the complexity of accounting for different variations of vehicles sold based on optional equipment, we interpret Part 523 to require that vehicle classification be determined on the basis of the vehicle without optional equipment installed. Therefore, we agree that two-wheel drive utility vehicles which are truck derivatives and which, in base form, have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume should be classified as light trucks for fuel economy purposes.

Environmental Activities Staff

General Motors Corporation

September 17, 1981

Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

In response to General Motors' March 31, 1980 question on vehicle classification for fuel economy purposes, your August 12, 1981 letter stated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act would not permit NHTSA to classify two wheel drive utility vehicles, i.e., Blazer and Suburban, as light trucks for off-highway use if they were under 6000 lbs. Vehicles designed to perform "truck-like" functions on-highway can also be classified as light trucks. We realize your agency must work within the requirements of the statute and the 6000 lb. GVWR limit cannot be changed by regulation. However, your letter did not consider the alternative on-highway classification route for utility vehicles to be classified as light trucks.

49 CFR Part 523.4(a)(4) of the fuel economy regulations allows a two wheel drive vehicle under 6000 lbs. GVWR to be classified as light truck if the cargo-carrying volume is greater than the passenger-carrying volume. The cargo and passenger volumes are determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1100a, Motor Vehicle Dimensions (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, SAE, approved September 1973 and last revised September 1975). All dimensions are measured to the base vehicle and do not include Regular Production Options (RPO). Both our current Blazer and Suburban offer a folding second seat as an option. The cargo volume easily exceeds the passenger volume on the base models without the optional second seat. These models are designed for commercial use and their cargo carrying capability is significant without the second seat. Therefore, these vehicles qualify as light trucks independent of the 6000 lb. GVWR requirement. When we produce future downsized utility models, less than 6000 lb. GVWR, these vehicles will also qualify as light trucks if their cargo volume exceeds the passenger volume on the base vehicle.

More important, the critical issue in utility or multipurpose vehicle classification is their cargo carrying capability which is inherently derived from the base pickup truck. NHTSA agreed with this truck derivative implication in their Vehicle Classification Final Rule 42 F.R. 38366(1977). Since the same truck chassis is used for both the pickup and the utility models (Blazer or Suburban) they both are light trucks.

Our future product programs are proceeding according to the above interpretation of the vehicle classification regulation. Your confirmation of this interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

T. M. Fisher, Director Automotive Emission Control

ID: nht81-3.37

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to a continuous-loop, Type 2 seat belt assembly. You ask whether each structural component of such a seat belt assembly should be considered "common" hardware for both the pelvic and upper torso portions of the assembly.

Paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Standard No. 209 specifies that the structural components in a Type 2 seat belt assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3,000 pounds. Arguably, in a continuous-loop system with a sliding buckle latchplate, every component of the assembly could be considered "common" hardware since, as your letter points out, if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly could be rendered useless. However, the agency has stated in the past that testing for compliance with paragraph S4.4 of the standard on continuous-loop, Type 2 assemblies will be conducted by using a webbing clamp to segregate the portion of the assembly not being tested, i.e., to separate the pelvic and upper torso portions. This means that in continuous-loop systems the pelvic portion and the upper torso portion are not to be tested simultaneously. Although a test apparatus can be designed to simultaneously load a Type 2 continuous-loop assembly without the use of webbing clamps, the agency determined that such a test method is extremely difficult to perform. I am enclosing copies of two earlier letters of interpretation on this subject.

In light of this prior interpretation, the agency cannot conclude that all components of a continuous-loop system are "common" hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). Rather, it is our opinion that only the latchplate, buckle and the inboard seat belt anchorage are common hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). The belt retractor and the "D" ring should be considered only part of the upper torso portion of the continuous-loop system.

I would point out that it is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine and certify compliance with all applicable safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The agency does not provide prior approval of any safety design or test method. Therefore, you are free to test seat belt assemblies by any method you believe to be sufficient to establish due care that the assemblies are in compliance with Safety Standard No. 209. In our opinion, however, the test method mentioned in your letter would maintain a somewhat higher standard of performance than that currently required by the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1981

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

I am requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The referenced paragraph pertains to the structural loading of the "common" hardware within a type 2 seat belt assembly.

We have always tested the buckle tongue and buckle assemblies as common hardware. My concern is, with a type 2, one retractor assembly which has a free sliding buckle tongue. I feel that each structural component within the assembly (e.g., the retractor, the sling or "D" ring) could be considered common to both the pelvic and torso portions, due to the fact if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly would be rendered useless.

One possible argument to my feelings would be, that during the actual dynamic crash environment as opposed to the static loading environment of the standard, there may not be sufficient time for all of the loads to be evenly distributed.

The reason for my request, is that Dayton T. Brown, Inc. conducts certification testing for various seat belt manufacturers. We do not want to overburden them by insisting that all of their components meet the common hardware requirements, nor do we want to jeopardize the integrity of the system by not fully testing it.

Very truly yours, DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.;

D. R. Wachsmuth -- Senior Test Engineer

cc: D. Delve NEF32 -- NHTSA

ID: nht81-3.38

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restraint a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.

Section 4 of the standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.

You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed or movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.

Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head support surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint from the minimum head support surface requirement if, "the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2." Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.

You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Section 5.4.3.2 provides that:

Each belt that is a part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.)

As previously mentioned, the definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes Type I or Type II seat belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language emphasized above, the requirements of S5.4.3.2 do not apply to the lap and lap/shoulder belts used with a child restraint system. The agency, however, is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child that the lap belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the drawing of your restraint, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.

You stated that the booster seat would not have a harness system when it is used at a vehicle seating position equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. The standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems only applies if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system.

Finally, you said that the booster seat would be sold with an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness. The harness would attach to the vehicle lap belt when the booster seat is used at a vehicle seating position that has no lap/shoulder belt. The harness would not have a crotch strap. As discussed previously, section 5.4.3.3 of the standard specifies the requirements that a child restraint system which provides a belt system must meet. S5.4.3.3(c) provides:

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children over 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:

i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso, or

ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).

The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface design that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restraint could be designed to prevent submarining.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration July 27, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future child restraints we may produce. In this evaluation, we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed under the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard on designs that have a minimal "booster" seat and rely on the automobile adult lap belt or the auto adult lap/shoulder belt as a direct means of restraining the child.

If we had a design that was specified to be used only by children over 20 lbs., that had a firm seating platform with no sides or back, that by its design properly positioned the auto's three (3) point adult lap/shoulder belt for this age of child to provide adequate protection during dynamic testing, would such a design be allowed by the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard? It should be noted that the auto belts would be in direct contact with the child; there would be no other harness belts when used in an auto seat that provides a lap/shoulder belt; there would be no crotch strap at any time, but there would be an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness that would attach to the auto lap belt for use where no automobile lap/shoulder belt is provided. Finally, there would be no fixed or movable surface directly forward of the child. A drawing representing this concept is attached.

There are several sections of the standard that need interpreting on how they relate to such a design. They include Sections S5.4.3.2. through to Section S5.5 and others.

Would you please give us your official interpretation on whether this proposed design would comply with the 213-80 standard? We hope you will be able to give these questions your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)