ID: nht93-4.4

DATE: May 19, 1993

FROM: Richard A. Zander -- Project Engineer, AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/23/94 from John Womack to Richard A. Zander (A42; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am writing to obtain your official interpretation of the following statement in 49 CFR 57, 105 Section S5.1.4.2(a) "each vehicle with GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

I am requesting your official interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." As further reference Section S7.11.2.1 states "Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time."

Within the industry, I know of three different interpretations of this statement, there could by more:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps. 3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

In the "Laboratory procedures for FMVSS No. 105-83, TP-105-83-00, dated January 31, 1984, page 1.49, data sheet No. 1.16 for the fade stops, requests the following information for the deceleration "Average Sust Decel" see pages 1 and 2 of Attachment A. Therefore, it appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the statement "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

Pages 3 & 4 of attachment A are a typical fade stops. The X axis is time and on the Y axis is deceleration and pedal force.

Interpretation ONE would consider these a pass because the average deceleration was greater than 15 fpsps and the pedal force did not exceed 150 lbs.

Interpretation TWO would consider these a fail because several data points fell below 15 fpsps. This interpretation appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure. The intent being that a vehicle be capable of making multiple

high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. Thus the recovery stops have a maximum and a minimum pedal force requirement based on the baseline check stops.

Maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps insures adequate heat build up in the linings to determine if they will fade or drastically change effectiveness.

The deceleration could fall below 15 fpsps for short periods of time due to instrumentation noise or in stop fade which was not immediately compensated for by the driver. Interpretation THREE would consider these a pass because the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps for 75% of the stop after the first one second.

Considering the intent of the fade procedure, the 75% requirement is not necessary to insure adequate heat build-up in the linings.

The NHTSA interpretation "average sustained deceleration" would also consider these a pass.

I am also requesting that you send the latest version of the test procedure for FMVSS No. 105 from the office of vehicle compliance. Please send to:

Richard Z. Zander Allied Signal Automotive Proving Grounds 3214 State Road 2 New Carlisle, IN 46552

Thank you for your time and effort to respond to my requests.

ATTACHMENT

Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-83; TP-105-83-00; January 31, 1984. (Text omitted)

ID: nht93-4.40

DATE: June 22, 1993

FROM: Jerry G. Thorn -- General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Jerry G. Thorn (A41; VSA S102(4))

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," as that term is defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1391(4). A promotional sheet for the product is enclosed for your information.

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act ("CPSA"), the Commission could regulate this product only if it is a "consumer product" as that term in defined in the CPSA. However, section 3(a)(1)(C) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. S 2052(a)(1)(C), provides that the term consumer product does not include "motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact Harleigh Ewell in my office at 301-504-0980 if you need further information.

Attachment

Promotional sheet omitted.

ID: nht93-4.41

DATE: June 22, 1993

FROM: Alan Niedzwiecki -- Director of Business Development, EDO Corporation, Government Systems Division

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: DOT NHTSA position on CNG cylinder standards

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/13/93 from John Womack to Alan Niedzwiecki (A41; Part 303)

TEXT:

EDO Corporation is a seventy year old Aerospace/Defense contractor headquartered in College Point, New York with several operating divisions across the USA and one in Canada. One of the products that EDO Corporation has developed and is currently manufacturing is an all-composite cylinder for compressed natural gas vehicle on-board motor fuel storage. The cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CNG cylinder standard which has the highest safety factor of any other existing CNG cylinder standard (SF 3.33). Our cylinder was actually tested to a safety factor of 3.5. It is EDO's intention to begin a large US fleet conversion program using these cylinders, commencing July 15, 1993. If this program is successful, vehicle may be equipped at the OEM level with these cylinders.

At this time, there is no applicable U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) cylinder standard for compressed natural gas on-board motor vehicle storage cylinders. To quote the NFPA 52 (1992 Edition) Section 2-4.2: "Note 1: Current DOT and TC specifications, exemptions, and specific permits do not address the use of cylinders as vehicle fuel containers."

We are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), entitled: "NHTSA 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas Fuel System and Fuel Tank Integrity." This new CNG cylinder standard is to be adopted by law on September 1, 1994. It is our understanding that the NHTSA NPRM is a self certification standard which places full responsibility on both the cylinder manufacturer and automobile manufacturer for liability issues. In addition, manufacturers are subject to the U.S. re-call laws under the U.S. Automobile Vehicles Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381.

It is important to note that the existing EDO LiteRider cylinder meets the requirements of the "New" DOT NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 49 CFR Part 571 FMVSS in its current form which calls for a 3.5 safety factor.

In the interim, the AGA NGV2 has been adopted by ANSI as a voluntary industry standard for CNG motor fuel storage cylinders.

Based on numerous discussions with Department of Transportation and American Gas Association Laboratory personnel, please note that:

. The EDO LiteRider cylinder has been certified to the Canadian Government CAN/CSA B51-M91 Appendix G, Boiler, Pressure Vessel, and Pressure Piping Code.

. EDO has commenced ANSI/AGA NGV2 Certification. Anticipated approval - July 1, 1993.

. EDO will comply with the US Automobile Vehicle Safety Act, U.S.C. 1381.

. EDO has sold LiteRider cylinders for demonstration programs, in USA.

. EDO is aggressively promoting the sale of LiteRider cylinders throughout the USA.

It is EDO's position that given the above certifications there are no additional DOT regulations to which we are required to comply, prior to starting the conversion program.

We request that you review our position and let us know if there are any other measures required, prior to our proceeding.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (718) 321-4503 or Fax: (718) 321-4540. My mailing address is as follows:

EDO Energy Corporation 14-04 111 Street College Point, New York 11356-1434 Attn: A. Niedzwiecki, Director of Business Development

ID: nht93-4.42

DATE: June 23, 1993

FROM: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management & Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TO: Ron Engles -- Safety Counter Measure Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 (est) from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Gail Lindsey (A41; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This correspondence is a reply to our recent phone conversation concerning the transporting of school children to and from special events in any vehicle other than school buses.

In the past, it has been School Board policy to disallow the use of mini-vans on such events. I am requesting any information on the crash safety standards of such vehicles, or any recommendations that your office may give so that we can make a safe and fair determination on this current policy.

Any assistance you can give will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-4.43

DATE: June 23, 1993

FROM: Howard Schecter

TO: Office of Cheif Counsal (Chief Counsel), NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/16/93 from John Womack to Howard Schecter (A41; Std. 115)

TEXT:

I am seeking help in obtaining a guidance document regarding a 3 wheeled motorcycle that I purchased from a second party in California and then shipped to Hawaii.

The trike is made with a Corvair frame, engine, and transmission. The front end is a Yamaha. Hawaii has a Reconstructed Vehicle Department, which I brought the trike to for inspection. I was told the trike didn't have a 17 digit Federal ID#, therefore I couldn't register the trike.

I called the manufacture in California. He told me the following: when he first started building these trikes many years ago, he was approached by an inspector from the DMV. He was told that he had to apply for a manufacturers license. After filing the application it was returned to him by the same inspector telling him that California didn't consider him a manufacturer since he was using all used equipment was allowed to continue building his trikes. He was then told to take his trike to the California Highway Patrol to obtain a VIN#, an engine ID#, and a control number.

He was not told anything about Federal ID#. He has shipped his trikes all over the U.S. including 4 trikes to the Big Island of Hawaii. He manufactures about 6 trikes per year. I would appreciate whatever help you can lend me so that I can get my trike registered in this state.

ID: nht93-4.44

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Crane -- Calspan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from Donald J. Crane to Mary Versailles (OCC 8610).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 26, 1993, on Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS. You request a determination of whether a seat manufactured by a client of yours is a "seat having a back that is, adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." Such a seat is excepted by S4.3 of Standard No. 207 from the strength requirements in S4.3.2.2 for seat back restraining devices. The seat in question has an angle of 24 degrees, and can recline from that position 39 degrees 30' forward and 58 degrees rearward.

With respect to the rearward folding of your seat, the answer to your question is yes, the seat is excepted from S4.3.2.2. However, the seat is not excepted from S4.3.2.2 with respect to forward folding.

The exception at issue was adopted in response to a petition by the Rover Company, who requested special treatment for a seat with a back that had a range of adjustment from 77 degrees to the horizontal down to 19 degrees to the horizontal. In creating the exception for the type of seat described by Rover, the agency included seats with backs that folded until they were substantially horizontal. The seat your client manufactures has a similar rearward folding range as Rover, and therefore, does not require a restraining device for the rearward folding of the seat back.

However, the exception created in response to the Rover petition does not cover the forward folding of your seat. A seat having a back that folds for the occupant's comfort, but that also folds in another manner is required to have a restraining device for the second folding mode. It does not appear that the forward-folding mode of the seat back is only for the comfort of the seat occupant. Therefore, your client's seat would be required to have a restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back.

You also asked if our interpretation would be different if the vehicle was a 2-door type. Our interpretation regarding the restraining device exception would not change. However, you should note that the front seat would be required by S4.3(b) to have a control for releasing the restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back, if there is another seat behind it.

You also asked if your client's seat is a "full-flat seat," a term used by your client. As Ms. Versailles of my staff discussed with you, we are uncertain about the meaning of this term. If your client can provide further information about the seat, please contact us.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.45

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-93 EST from Linda Roberson to NHTSA (OCC 8490); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: This responds to your letters about the "vest harness" you have designed for the Body Safety Kid's Club, and follows up on a June 4, 1993 telephone call to you from Deirdre Fujita of my staff. The question posed by your inquiry is whether the manufacture of the vest harness is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The answer is no.

Your letter indicated that the vest harness is made to help parents restrain their children in public areas, and especially in crowds. The vest harness has a strap-like "tether" that a parent would hold to prevent the child from wandering off on his or her own, possibly getting lost. Your letter also indicated that the vest harness could possibly be used as a seat belt accessory" and that you wanted NHTSA to crash test your product with child dummies to see how it would perform in the vehicle. (You did not know that NHTSA does not test manufacturers' products before the sale of the product.) However, after discussing NHTSA's requirements for motor vehicle vest harnesses with Ms. Fujita, you advised that you will not recommend its use as a safety belt accessory or as a motor vehicle harness. You expect that the vest harness would be worn in the vehicle only insofar as it need not be removed to restrain the child; the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt could be threaded between the vest and the child.

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used outside of motor vehicles. While the vest harness occasionally may be worn in a motor vehicle, use in the vehicle is incidental to the vest's use as a means to better supervise the child in public areas. Further, you informed Ms. Fujita that you will ensure that the product literature for the vest harness will not claim that the vest harness could improve crash protection in the vehicle, such as by better positioning the vehicle's belts on the child or by preventing the child from circumventing the vehicle belt system. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness do not appear related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is not considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by NHTSA.

We would like to note the following, however. Products that are sold to alter the fit of vehicle belts to better accommodate children are considered "motor vehicle equipment" by NHTSA. I have enclosed a copy of a February 25, 1992 letter to Mr. Phil Gray as an example of one such letter. Although we have concluded that your product is not motor vehicle equipment, we emphasize that this conclusion is based on the information you provided about the very limited use of the vest harness in motor vehicles. In the event that the expected use of the vest harness changes to include motor vehicle use (e.g., as a seat belt accessory), the vest harness might well be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Further, as an equipment item, the vest harness could be subject to our motor vehicle safety standard for child harnesses, FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." A copy of our September 6, 1984 letter to Mr. Phillip Ables generally discussing requirements of that standard is enclosed. If the expected use of the vest harness changes, please contact us for information about Standard No. 213 and other NHTSA requirements.

In addition, you may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to your product. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

ID: nht93-4.46

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: Turn Signal Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for your detailed answers, which you have sent us by fax on May 28. Nevertheless we have an other question to you with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under FMVSS Standard No. 108.

You applicate the SAE J 588 Nov. 84 but the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual instructs us to applicate the SAE J 588 Sept. 70. Which SAE Standard is the right one?

Please send us an actual copy of the "Table III - Required Motor Vehicle Lighting equipment - Cont." from the FMVSS standard No. 108.

Please send your answer by fax.

Address see above.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht93-4.47

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner

TO: Chief Counsel

COPYEE: Wayne Qualls

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-93 from John Womack (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Ernest Farmer (Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We are interested in conducting a "controlled" experiment involving a substitution of strobe lights for the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses. Would this experiment, in your opinion, conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108? An early reply would be appreciated since the retrofitting of these three buses (one bus in each of three school systems) is scheduled during the month of July.

ID: nht93-4.48

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Kenneth P. Simons -- Lawyer

TO: Department of Transportation -- Trucking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Ken Simons (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I would like an answer or information as to whether or not over the road trailers (as in tractor trailer) of recent manufacture are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles.

The "maxi" brake I am referring to is found on all road tractors and sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.

Thank you for you anticipated cooperation.