ID: 1984-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bane; Allison; Saint & Ehlers; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 14, 1984

John R. Bailen, Esq. Bane, Allison Saint & Ehlers, P.C. 200 West Front Street Fifth Floor Bloomington, Illinois 61701

Dear Mr. Bailen:

This responds to your letter to this office asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically you represent a client who will be manufacturing seat covers which would be attached to the seat of the child restraint system. You stated that you had spoken with Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking Division, and he had indicated his opinion that the only requirements to which these seat covers might be subject would be the flammability requirements. You asked if this is correct, and if any other requirements were applicable, noting a particular interest in whether any labeling requirements might apply to these seat covers. There are no labeling requirements promulgated by this agency applicable to those seat covers. Further, the flammability requirements incorporated in Standard No. 213 are applicable only if your client wishes to have those covers installed an child restraint systems by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops.

Standard No. 213 specifies information which must appear on a label affixed to each child restraint system. However, none of that information relates to the materials used in the seat covers. Hence, Standard No. 213 does not impose any labeling requirements which might be applicable to seat covers for child restraint systems.

Further, Standard No. 213 applies to child restraint systems prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or an the child restraint system. Generally those aftermarket accessories may be added to the child restraint system, even if the addition of those accessories causes the child restraint to no longer comply with Standard No. 213, without violating the requirements of the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in...an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,...." Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraint system conform to the requirements of section S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). If a party were to add a seat cover which did not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 to a child restraint which was previously certified as meeting those flammability requirements, that act would be interpreted by this agency as rendering inoperative the flammability resistance installed on the child restraint in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. If such an act were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, and such a violation would subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

You should note that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act do not apply to a consumer who renders inoperative some element of design of the child restraint system, and therefore your client's seat cover need not satisfy the flammability requirements for child restraint systems if it is intended to be sold to and installed by consumers. You might wish to inform your client about potential liability under State and common law if the seat covers do not comply with those flammability requirements, in the event those seat covers catch fire.

You may also wish to inform your client about the potential consequences of an item of motor vehicle equipment which is determined to contain a safety-related defect. Should these seat covers catch fire in situations where seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302 would not catch fire, the non-complying seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BANE, ALLISON, SAINT & EHLERS, P.C.

November 30, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: Child Car Seat Covers

Gentlemen/Ladies:

I represent an individual who shall be manufacturing child seat covers which basically are fabric covers which shall attach to the child car seat. The purpose of this correspondence is to inquire as to whether there are any labeling requirements to which these covers are subject. From preliminary inquiries I have made with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, they inform me that standards, if any, pertaining to this seat, would be under the jurisdiction of NHTSA inasmuch as it is NHTSA that exercises authority over child car seats.

I have discussed this matter briefly with Val Radovich of your office and the only standard to which he thinks these covers may be subject would be flammability standards as provided in Federal Motor Vehicle Standards No. 302 and 213. Because Mr. Radovich is not certain of this, he suggested I contact you for your opinion on this matter. Inasmuch as these seat covers will be coming in contact with children's skin, I was wondering whether any children's clothing labeling requirements might be applicable to this cover.

My client is eager to commence production at the earliest possible date and, of course, will comply with whatever standards to which these covers may be subject. I would appreciate your direction in this regard at your earliest convenience so that I may advise my client in a manner consistent with applicable federal requirements.

Your assistance is most appreciated.

Very truly yours,

John R. Bailen

JRBsv

ID: 1984-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: 1984-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN S. CUCHERAN -- VICE PRESIDENT DESIGN & ENGINEERING JAC PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.

You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certain vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation "exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area"; alternatively, you request that we "consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers". You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.

General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement, asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).

Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authority to exempt, on our own motion, "deck rack cross rails from compliance". Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.

We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks for motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J-cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.

A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J-car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: 1984-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regional Administrator, NHTSA Region V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Legal Opinion - School Bus Definition Change Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Regional Administrator, NHSTA Region V

This responds to your May 10, 1984, memo regarding Representative Mautino's bill, NB 3117, which would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to exclude from the definition of "school bus" any vehicle designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers. The Illinois Department of Transportation asked what the consequences would be if this amendment were enacted into law. You referred their inquiry to this office for our reply.

HB 3117 would classify as "school buses" vehicles which are designed to carry 16 or more passengers that are owned by or operated for a school, for the transportation of students. Our Federal regulations define a bus to be a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus to be a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of Illinois not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standard to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under the state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

Thus the preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. Regardless of how Illinois classifies a particular vehicle, if there are Federal standards regulating certain aspects of performance of the vehicle, any State standards regulating the same aspects of performance must be identical except, as already noted, when it sets a higher standard of performance for a vehicle procurred for the State's own use.

A state decision to adopt all or none of the Federal standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle is accordance with the Federal standards. Further, any person selling vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. We note further that use of noncomplying vehicles as school buses could result in potential liability problems for the users of the vehicle if the buses are involved in accidents.

The proposed State definition change also would not affect the definition of school bus used by the agency for the purposes of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17.

ID: 1984-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/84 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas D. Turner Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 AC-912/825-2O21 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your letter dated March 27, 1984 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 Reflecting Surfaces in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "bright metal components." You asked whether these components would include only polished metal or plated components and not painted metal components, even if painted "a shiny high gloss black." In addition, you asked whether a plastic component would be covered by the standard.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. The standard sets limits on the "specular gloss of the surface of the materials" used for certain "bright metal components." The standard was based on materials commonly used in vehicle at the time of the standard issuance and thus it referred to metal components. Since the requirements apply to the surfaces of those metal components, a metal interior rearview mirror frame with a painted "shiny high glass" surface would be covered by the standard.

An all-plastic component would be outside the literal requirements of the standard. But since a plastic component could produce an unacceptable glare if located in the driver's field of view, the agency urges manufacturers to use plastic materials which will not produce glare.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 27, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing you to reference to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 107-Reflecting Surfaces. The standard specifies the specular gloss of the surface of the materials used for specified " . . . bright metal components in the driver's field of view . . polished metal or plated components and not to painted components. Thus, an inside rearview mirror frame and bracket, for example, painted black would not be subject to the requirements of the standard even if it were painted a shiny high gloss black. Likewise, a plastic component would not be subject to the standards requirements unless it was bright metal plated such as being chrome plated.

We request your confirmation of our interpretation and thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services fvc c: David James FMVSS 107 File

ID: 1984-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 3, 1984

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Schnader; Harrison; Segal & Lewis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to an emergency locking retractor designed by one of your clients. The following discussion addresses the application of those standards to the retractor.

You explained that the purpose of the new emergency locking retractor (ELR) is to facilitate the securing of a child restraint in a vehicle. The ELR would only be installed in forward-facing passenger seating positions. The new ELR is designed so if the belt is pulled all the way out of the retractor, the ELR will convert into an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor will revert automatically to the ELR mode.

You further explained that the continuous loop lap and upper torso belt used with this retractor is 380 mm longer than the belt system provided for the driver's seating position. You explained that the extra 380 mm of belt webbing is meant "to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child restraint use."

You specifically asked whether the retractor designed by your client would be considered an ELR for the purposes of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you asked about the retractor durability tests of S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209. As a part of that test, a retractor is subjected to "45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." You asked whether, for the purposes of the section 5.2(k) test, the length of the driver's belt, which is 380 mm shorter than the passenger's belt, could be used to determine what constitutes 100 percent extension of the belt. You alternatively asked whether the test could be stopped before complete extension of the passenger belt.

As we understand your client's seat belt assembly, the amount of webbing in the driver's side assembly complies to the adjustment requirements of section 4.1(g) of Standard No. 209. The 380 mm's of extra webbing that is included in the passenger's seat belt assembly has been voluntarily added as a precaution to reduce the possibility of an occupant inadvertently actuating the ALR mode of the retractor. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that in normal operation by occupants covered by the adjustment requirements of Standard No. 209 the retractor functions exclusively as an ELR and thus can be used to meet the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. The agency views the 380 mm's of extra webbing as a voluntary addition not required by the standard. Therefore, for the purpose of section 5.2(k) of Standard No. 209, the agency will use the length of the driver's belt to determine what constitutes full extension of the webbing.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1984

Diane Steed -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Interpretation of FMVSS 208 & 209 re: Emergency Locking Retractors

Dear Ms. Steed: On March 19, 1984, I met with Messrs. Hitchcock, Hunter, Smith and Nelson from the Office of Rulemaking and Mr. Gilkey from the Office of Enforcement to demonstrate a new design of emergency locking retractor that one of our clients will soon introduce on a new car in the United States. This innovative design addresses the problem of fitting a child seat to a seated position fitted with a seat belt equipped with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) rather than an automatic locking retractor (ALR). Many owners (and NHTSA) have expressed concern that a child seat may not be securely restrained by an ELR, or at least the vehicle operator may be unsure of the ELR's ability to secure the seat during normal vehicle operation, such as sudden stops or quick turns.

Our client has designed a unique ELR that automatically temporarily converts to an ALR mode to facilitate the fitting of a child seat. This is accomplished by merely pulling the belt all the way out of the retractor, at which point a click is heard, and the ELR converts to an ALR mode until the belt is again retracted back into the retractor. Once all but 1393-1493 mm of the belt retracts, the retractor reverts automatically to the normal ELR mode. This seat belt assembly, consisting of a slightly longer running loop combination lap and upper torso belt and the new ELR, will be installed only in forward-facing passenger seat positions -- not the driver's seat.

Paragraph S4.1.2.3.1(a) of FMVSS 208 requires the applicable vehicle to "have a seat belt assembly that conforms to S7.1 and S7.2." S7.1.1 requires an upper torso restraint furnished in accordance with S4.1.2.3.1(a) to "adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209." We believe that the retractor described herein and demonstrated to NHTSA on March 19, 1984 meets that requirement. That is to say that an ELR that is temporarily convertible to an ALR mode is still an ELR for the purpose of FMVSS 208.

Paragraph S5.2(k) of FMVSS 209 specifies requirements for retractor performance. As part of the durability requirements, an ELR "attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension." The subject ELR cannot be tested to exactly 100 percent extension without engaging the ALR mode. This would, of course, lock the belt when it is stopped at the 50 percent point and prevent its re-extension without retraction to within 255-355 mm of being completely retracted. An additional 380 mm of webbing is provided in this installation. This amount was selected as the optimum to permit normal occupant movement without inadvertent actuation of the ALR mode while still rendering it convenient for manual extension when the ALR mode is desired for child seat use. We feel it appropriate that this retractor be tested to the applicable portions of S5.2(k) using 50 to 100 percent of the belt length of the driver's belt, which is 38) mm shorter. Alternatively, if the 100 percent requirement is a nominal value only, the test could be stopped just before full extension to preclude unwanted conversion to the ALR mode during the retractor test.

We would appreciate your early confirmation of our understanding that this unique emergency locking retractor design complies with these paragraphs of FMVSS 208 and 209. Should for some reason you disagree with our interpretation, please treat this as a Petition for Rulemaking to amend such portions of the applicable standards as necessary to permit the use of what we believe to be an important and desirable safety innovation.

Sincerely, Donald M. Schwentker -- SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 1984-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Bruce Henderson Automobile Importer of America 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1002 Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your specific question was whether a fuse box cover must comply with the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard. As explained below, a fuse box cover does not have to comply with section 3.3.

Section 3.3 of the standard provides that each "interior compartment door" in certain vehicle locations must remain closed when subjected to the specified performance tests. Section 571.3 defines an interior compartment door as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects." The definition is meant to include such storage areas as the "glovebox" which has a large door which could fly open in a crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space.

Although not covered by the standard, we would urge a manufacturer carefully to design the fuse box in such a way as to prevent injuries if it is located in an area which could be struck by an occupant in a crash.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 13, 1984, addressed to Mr. Roman Brooks of NHTSA's Office of Enforcement. You stated that you were submitting the letter "to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally" concerning the compliance of a proposed electronic odometer design with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You also stated that lead time dictates an imminent decision on design plans, that the agency's "early approval/response" to your selected solution is greatly appreciated, and that if you do not hear to the contrary within 30 days, you will assume the agency's concurrence. As discussed below, your letter indicates a serious misunderstanding of both Federal statutory requirements and NHTSA policies and procedures. Moreover, your apparent interpretation of Standard No. 101 is incorrect.

First, NHTSA does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

NHTSA is willing to provide interpretations and opinions in response to reasonable requests. However, such interpretations and opinions are only provided in writing and only by NHTSA's Chief Counsel. The agency does not consider itself bound by verbal statements made by agency employees or by interpretations made by persons other than the Chief Counsel.

Moreover, NHTSA does not offer interpretations by remaining silent in response to letters which assert that such silence is assumed to be concurrence. The agency considers the inclusion of such purported conditions to be inappropriate and does not consider itself bound by them.

The agency regrets if Mr. Brooks' conversation contributed to the misunderstandings apparent in your letter. In the future, questions of interpretation should be addressed in writing to the Chief Counsel.

Your question of interpretation concerns a proposed design for an electronic odometer which would display either miles or kilometers. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, the vehicle's speedometer would display, at the option of the driver, in either miles per hour or kilometers per hour. The selected unit of measure would he identified by a lighted display reading either "MPH" or "Km/h". The digits of the odometer would correspond to the units of measure selected for the speedometer, but the odometer itself would not identify its units of measure. As discussed below, such a design would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, since that standard requires an odometer that indicates kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km".

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires that "each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Odometers are one of the displays listed in column 1 of Table 2.

Section S5.2.f references the requirements of Table 2. Footnote 3 of Table 2 specifies the following requirement for odometers:

If the odometer indicates kilometers, then "KILOMETERS" or "km" shall appear, otherwise no identification is required.

Section S5.2.3 further provides that "the identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Standard No. 101 thus requires odometers indicating kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km", and such identification must be placed on or adjacent to the odometer. Since your proposed design would indicate kilometers, it would be necessary to identify its units of measure according to these requirements.

I would note that these requirements cannot be met merely by placing the odometer adjacent to the speedometer. While the identification of the selected units of measure for the speedometer could be placed adjacent to both the speedometer and odometer, the identification requirements are different for the two displays. Table 2 requires that a speedometer graduated in miles per hour and kilometers per hour be identified by "MPH and km/h" in any combination of upper or lower case letters. As discussed above, the requirement for odometers is "KILOMETERS" or "km". A single identification of units of measure cannot meet these requirements simultaneously.

Please note that this opinion is limited to the specific issue raised by your letter and does not consider whether the proposed design would otherwise meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 13, 1984

Mr. Roman Brooks Enforcement Operating Systems and Occupant Protection National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Relevant to our conversation on odometer/speedometer nomenclature during the third week of March, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation hereby submits the letter you suggested in order to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally.

Description

MMC intends to introduce a future model instrument panel which will have an electronic digital speedometer, and electronic digital conventional and trip odometers.

As in the 1983 model Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Saporro, built by Mitsubishi and sold in the U.S., the digital electronic speedometer can be displayed at the option of the driver either in MPH or Km/h, and the selected unit is shown with a lighted display. In those vehicles the odometers (conventional and trip) are mechanical units which only display miles and no units accompany the odometer as FMVSS 101 allows.

However, the new model MMC intends to introduce will be equipped also with electronic odometers (conventional and trip). Because of the versatility of electronics, MMC intends to display the digits of the odometers also in the units (either miles or Km) which correspond to the units the driver has selected for the speedometer (either MPH or Km/h). An explanation will be put in the owners Manual, as you suggested, that the odometers will display the corresponding miles or Km to the lighted display at the speedometer which the driver has selected (either MPH or Km/h), but the odometer itself will not show its units.

Furthermore, the new odometer will be in comparable compliance with Title IV insofar as accuracy, difficulty to alter mileage, etc.

Request

Since lead time for this new model dictates an imminent decision on how to handle the nomenclature, your early approval/response to our selected solution is greatly appreciated.

If we do not hear to the contrary within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will assume your concurrence.

Thank you in advance for your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President /sg cc: Messrs. A. H. Neill J. E. Glancy

ID: 1984-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dinkelspiel; Donovan & Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

US. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcadero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Escobosa:

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Paul Escobosa PE:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen