ID: nht80-2.45

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 6, 1980

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1980, asking whether certain listed sizes of Phoenix brand tires, imported by Meon, Inc. fall within the coverage of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). You state that Meon, Inc. is the sole United States importer of Phoenix tires, that the total number of Phoenix tires to be imported will not exceed 35,000 per year, and that no more than 15,000 tires of a particular type or size will be imported annually.

The UTQG Standards do not apply to "limited production tires" as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of the UTQG regulation. To qualify as a limited production tire, the annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner cannot exceed 15,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). The tire's size cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into this country in quantities exceeding 10,000 vehicles during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iii)). In addition, the total annual domestic production or importation into the United States by the tire's manufacturer of tires otherwise meeting the limited production criteria cannot exceed 35,000 tires (49 CFR S 575.104(c)(2)(iv)).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the first and third criteria would be satisfied with regard to Meon's contemplated importation of Phoenix tires. However, your letter provides no information on the production of vehicles for which the stated tire sizes may be recommended.

In order to ascertain whether the subject tires meet all of the criteria for limited production tires, Meon must determine the motor vehicles for which the stated sizes were designated as recommended tire sizes during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and the domestic production or importation of each of those vehicles for that calendar year.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 8, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT: RE: PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES FROM WEST GERMANY

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM YOUR OFFICE THAT PHOENIX IMPORTED TIRES ARE EXEMPT FROM UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING.

THE FACTS ARE THESE:

1. WE ARE THE DESIGNATED AGENT OF PHOENIX A.G. OF WEST GERMANY, MANUFACTURERS OF PHOENIX BRAND TIRES. WE ARE ALSO THE SOLE IMPORTERS.

2. WE IMPORT THE FOLLOWING TYPES, SIZES, AND CONSTRUCTIONS:

SIZE TOTAL # # AND TYPES TREAD DESIGN TREAD COMPOUND OF PLIES OF PLIES

185/60HR13 5 1 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/60VR13 5 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 175/70HR13 5 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

185/70HR13 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 RAYON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60HR13 6 2 STEEL 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 195/60HR14 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 185/70HR14 6 4 RIB HIGH SPEED

195/70HR14 4 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 195/70VR14 4 2 RAYON 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED 205/70HR14 4 2 STEEL 5 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/70VR14 4 5 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

205/60HR15 6 2 RAYON, 2 STEEL 4 RIB HIGH SPEED 205/60VR15 6 2 NYLON 4 RIB VERY HIGH SPEED

LATER THIS YEAR WILL BE ADDED THE FOLLOWING TIRES:

235/60HR13 235/60VR13 245/60HR14 245/60VR14 195/50HR15 195/50VR15

TOTAL TIRES TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT EXCEED 35,000 PER YEAR. NO SINGLE TYPE OR SIZE WILL EXCEED 15,000 IN QUANTITY FOR A YEAR.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT PHOENIX TIRES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS REGULATION. EACH OF THE 14 TIRE TYPES AND SIZES WE SELL NOW HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS AND WOULD ENTAIL SEPARATE TESTS, THE COSTS OF WHICH WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE, AND THE RESULTS LIMITED. WITH 6 SIZES AND TYPES MORE TO BE ADDED SOON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS REQUIRED WOULD BE 20. THIS WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AND SERVE NO GOOD.

WE WERE REFERRED TO YOU BY DR. F. CECIL BRENNER OF THE OFFICE OF AUTOMOTIVE RATINGS.

AWAITING YOUR CONFIRMATION, WE ARE

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS, PRESIDENT MEON, INC.

MDD:AB

ID: nht80-2.46

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1980, asking whether a new electrical switch complies with S4.5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you have described it, the switch has three positions under two of which ("IGN/ACC" and "ACC") the hazard warning signals will operate. The third position, however, ("OFF") is a master switch which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle including hazard warning signals. You have asked whether this design is permissible under S4.5.5 which requires the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch." You have cited as precedent a 1972 letter from this agency to Imperial Fire Apparatus approving a battery disconnect switch design. In the 1972 system the hazard signals would only be activated by turning both the master switch and the flasher to "on". This was acceptable to NHTSA under paragraph 3(e) of SAE J910, Hazard Warning Signal Switch:

". . . providing the master switch is separate from the ignition switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off."

The principal difference between the two systems is that your switch "is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel."

The intent of S4.5.5. is that the hazard warning signals operate regardless whether the ignition switch is on or off.

This intent would not appear to be met by your system whose master switch is part of the ignition switch assembly. We suggest, therefore, that you modify your design so that the hazard warning signal circuit is added to that of the "CB" and clock which remain operable when the master switch is in the "off" position.

SINCERELY,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

April 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Ignition Switch with Master Off Position/FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5

Gentlemen: International Harvester Company (IH) is planning to introduce a new electrical switch on its new models. This switch incorporates a master "OFF" position which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle. The OFF (master) switch performs essentially the same function as the one described in the attached interpretation #N41-34 dated August 11, 1972 except that it is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel. This ignition switch has three positions "IGN/ACC", "ACC", and master "OFF". With the switch in the IGN/ACC position, the engine and accessories circuits are on. When the switch is turned to the "ACC" position, the engine is off and all accessories can be operated including the hazard warning flashers (key can be removed in this position). When the switch is turned to the master "OFF" position, all electrical circuits will be off except for the clock and "CB" circuits. These circuits must remain live so that the clock will continue running and the "CB" memory is maintained. Note that the switch can be turned from the "ACC" position to the "OFF" position or from the "OFF" position to the "ACC" position without a key. The key must be inserted to turn the ignition switch to engine run position ("IGN/ACC" position).

The purpose of this master "OFF" is to shut down most of the electrical circuits when the vehicle is not in use. This will protect the vehicle from power drains or fires due to electrical shorts when the vehicle is not in use. In addition, the vehicles electrical circuits can be shut off if a short is discovered by the driver while the vehicle is in use.

It is our opinion that this switch, which incorporates a master OFF is in compliance with FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5. We believe that it meets the intent of the standard of having the hazard flashers be operable when the engine is turned off and the key removed - (ACC position). We solicite the Agency's concurrence with this opinion.

This request is a follow-up to a telephone conversation of 4/21/80 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and Mr. Z. Taylor Venson, who advised that we write this office for an interpretation. As mentioned by Mr. Hamilton, we are in dire need of a speedy reply as we are about to finalize this design for our new models.

Attached for your reference is a sketch illustrating the newly designed ignition switch assembly in question.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

F. L. Krall, Manager Technical Legislation

ATTACH.

cc: GEORGE L. PARKER

MASTER OFF SWITCH

OFF - (MASTER) - MOST SYSTEMS OFF (HAZARD FLASHERS WILL NOT OPERATE) ACC - ENG OFF & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE)

IGN/ACC - ENG ON & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-2.47

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, in which" you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.

1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.

2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) "the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated." Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.

3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:

(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,

(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,

(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,

(d) driver's side window defroster control,

(e) driver's fresh air vent control,

(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.

Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standand 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, "control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield." Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.

9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.

The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.

The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.

10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment. 11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.

12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.

13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.

14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.

15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.

16. With respect to air conditioning systems:

(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.

(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system;

(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.

17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 16, 1980

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 101-80

The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation of several issues related to FMVSS 101-80, discussed at a January 9, 1980 meeting of NHTSA. The issues are numbered below in the sequence discussed at the meeting:

1. In all cases where both symbols and wording are shown in Table I, the symbol is mandatory and the wording is optional.

2. In the case of optional wording accompanying mandatory symbols, which require illumination, only the symbol must be illuminated. It is mandatory for the optional wording to be illuminated.

3. There is no requirement relating to driver comfort fans. These fans are provided to direct air at the driver for his comfort as the name indicates. However, they can be adjusted to direct air on the windshield.

4. There is no requirement for hot water flow valves for heaters. Typically, these valves are opened in winter and left open; closed in summer and left closed. Heat in regulated be means of switch controls to operate air blowers.

5. There is " requirement for heater fresh air control valves. These valves are used to control the ratio of fresh/recirculated air entering the heater.

6. The fan control for an optional driver's heater must be identified but not illuminated.

7. There is no requirement for a driver's side window defroster control.

8. There is no requirement for a driver's fresh air vent control.

9. Confirmation is needed with respect to Table II that the next to last line is only applicable to vehicles with air brakes and the last line is only applicable to vehicles with hydraulic brakes.

10. The proportion of the symbols are those developed by the ISO, however, there is no requirement limiting the minimum or maximum sizes of the symbols.

11. None of the requirements of Table II apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. This is true even in the case where a display is required by another FMVSS; Example: the turn signal display required by FMVSS 108.

12. A hazard control mounted in the steering column does not require illumination.

13. Clearance lamps may be controlled by the headlamp switch. In this case, only the headlamp symbol should be used.

14. If necessary to accomodate a temporary inventory balance out, a slightly different wiper symbol may appear on the wiper knobs that is required by Table I, provided that the required symbol appears adjacent to the control and is properly illuminatted. It is also satisfactory to provide no symbol on the knob itself.

15. With respect to S5.2.2, a bank of switches which control multi-speed fans will comply if they are identified as shown in the enclosed print 0981233.

16. Air conditioning controls must be identified but not illuminated. The extreme positions of air conditioning controls must be identified. The fan symbol is required for air conditioning fan controls.

17. Any type tell tale may be used for a single display on vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR to indicate high engine coolant temperature and/or low engine oil pressure. We understand that Ford Motor Company has proposed an engine symbol for such a display. What is the status of this proposal?

We would like to go on record at this time to alert NHTSA that it may be necessary to revise the effective date of the subject standard as it applies to heavy duty vehicles to alleviate a temporary chassis shortage. This could be caused by a prolonged strike by a major chassis manufacturer which is still in effect. This may result in the mounting of bodies on chassis built after September 1, 1980, which were scheduled for chassis built prior to that date.

Your early response to these items will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, William G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Department

fvc

Enclosure

c: Wilbur Rumph Ben Newberry Jim Moorman Jim Swift Bob DuMond

ID: nht80-2.48

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John P. Murtha, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Steve Zufall. Mr. Zufall is interested in the specifications applicable to the manufacture of propane tanks to be used in the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles. He asked how to obtain "numbers" to be listed on the tanks and mentioned the designation "4VA-240", which someone had discussed with him.

The enclosed discussion sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. The applicable statutory authority is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.

There are no requirements under the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that specify "numbers" which must be stamped on propane gas tanks. The designation mentioned by Mr. Zufall, "4VA-240", is actually "4BA-240" and refers to specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. These regulations would not apply, however, to tanks or fuel systems on private vehicles. For further information regarding these regulations, Mr. Zufall should contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY

The Federal Implications of Installing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks and Of Converting Fuel Systems to Use Alternate Fuels

Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles with are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.

The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees I. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (A)(1) of the Act, new Motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.P. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).

Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).

With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

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 . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 361-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (N.P. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be covered by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.

The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.

Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacements equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.

Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.

Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.

I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.49

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mechanical Plastics Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibility as a manufacturer if you modify a Volkswagen by the addition of a recreational device (Hatchpack). The modification that you propose appears to be substantial in that it might involve a significant alteration of the vehicle rear and roof structures.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information. First, the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. It is the responsibility of a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable requirements of all of our safety standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. For example, when 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 in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the Hatchpack device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment.

From the general discussion in your letter, you appear to want information on safety standards for which you would be responsible. Further, you state that Volkswagen has indicated its concern about the compliance of its vehicle with the crashworthiness safety standards if it is modified as you propose. As we stated above, as an equipment manufacturer, you would not be responsible for the compliance of any safety standard since we have no equipment standards applicable to the device that you manufacture. However, the installer of the device on a new vehicle would be responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to comply with all affected safety standards. The installer will probably need your help in making its certification. Therefore, we suggest that you closely confer with Volkswagen to learn which safety standards they feel might be violated by the addition of your equipment. With this information, you can conduct testing or undertake engineering analyses of your device as mounted on the vehicle to see whether Volkswagen's fears have merit. If you can assure yourself that the vehicle as modified will continue to comply with the safety standards, then you can pass this information along to the installer of the equipment who could then certify the vehicle in compliance.

The following are the responses to your specific questions.

1. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes our product fall, if it is to be installed and sold on new automobiles by licensed new car dealers?

As I stated above, the addition of this equipment to a new vehicle means that the installer of the equipment must attach an alterer's label to the vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Therefore, the installer would be responsible for any safety standard that might be affected by the installation.

2. Under what sections of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall, if it is to be installed by an independent accessory installer onto a new automobile which is then sold as a new vehicle by a licensed new car dealer?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question number 1.

3. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall, if it is to be installed by an automobile manufacturer as a factory option for new vehicles which are then to be sold by licensed new car dealers?

If the automobile manufacturer installs the device, that manufacturer simply certifies the vehicle in compliance with all safety standards as it must do with any vehicle it produces.

4. Under what section of the M.V. safety codes does our product fall if it is to be installed by an automobile owner/user?

There are no safety standards or other regulations applicable to modifications made to vehicle by their owners if the modifications are entirely made by the vehicles' owners. If a business such as a garage were to make the modification, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. However, since the vehicle would be used, such a business would not be required to attach a certification label.

5. In each of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4, who are the parties responsible for certifying to the N.H.T.S.A. that the product is in compliance with the required standards?

No person is required to certify to the NHTSA that a vehicle or product complies with the requirements. In certain instances, a certification lable must be attached to the vehicle. We have indicated in our response to each of the preceding questions when labels must be attached and by whom.

6. In each of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4, who are the liable parties in the event of injury or death as a result if improper installation?

If the improper installation results in a noncompliance with a safety standard or with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would hold the installer primarily responsible. If, however, we were to discover that the equipment itself were the cause of the defect or noncompliance, the equipment manufacturer would be responsible to the agency. With respect to private liability that might result from a defect or noncompliance, you should consult with your own attorneys for an answer to this question.

7. Pased on the general information supplied with this letter would the installation of this unit by other than a motor vehicle manufacturer require an "alterers" label or certification?

As we indicated earlier, the answer to this question is yes if the installation is made on a new motor vehicle that has been previously certified by its manufacturer.

8. Under which, if any, of the cases described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4 would there be an N.H.T.S.A. requirement for a fuel system integrity crash test?

The NHTSA does not require that any manufacturer perform a crash test if it can prove that the vehicle would comply with the requirements by some other means, such as design analysis. It is impossible for us to tell from your drawings whether your device would likely impact the fuel system. Volkswagen can probably be helpful in providing information in this area. If some impact on the fuel system is likely, testing or analysis would be required in each of the first three instances raised in your questions. No testing is ever required for the modification of used vehicles by their owners.

9. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from Mechanical Plastics Corp. for the Hatchpack product?

The NHTSA requires no advance forms of certification of assurances from manufacturers that their products comply with safety standards. Our enforcement scheme is one of self-certification where the agency might subsequently purchase and test a vehicle for compliance with the standards.

10. What form of assurances might N.H.T.S.A. require from the installing party as described in questions #1, #2, #3, and #4?

The answer to this question is the same as the answer to question number 9.

We hope that this clarifies your responsibilities and duties with respect to the device that you propose to manufacture. Again, we strongly encourage you to consult with Volkswagen engineers who can be the most helpful in telling you to the standards that you are likely to impact with your device. If you have any further questions, please contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht80-2.5

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartman, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 17, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartman, Braun & Halper Suite 1015 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc., concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

You asked whether a "foam tray" marketed as an accessory for a child restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray "may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners" and is made of polyurethane foam and "does not contain any metal or solid parts." The purpose of the device is "to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides."

Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.

You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained that Strolee is considering the use of "an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child." The impact shield "would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode." When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.

The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed or movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.

You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by the agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee")

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was a pleasure for Mr. Hyde and me to meet with you and your associates concerning the above referenced car seat regulations. As you know, our firm represents Strolee and we are writing this letter to you on their behalf.

We are sending you under separate cover a letter setting forth in detail our objections to what we perceive to be the ambiguities in the standard and our comments in relation thereto. The purpose of this letter is to seek your opinion under the existing standard concerning two areas of concern to our client. They are as follows:

1) Section 5.2.2.2 provides that each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or moveable surface directly forward of the dummy. Our client markets an accessory for use with its car seat which, for purposes of convenience, we would label as a "foam tray". This tray is made of polyurethane foam. It is not a part of the car seat and is sold totally separate and independent from the car seat. It may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners. It does not contain any metal or solid parts. It can be used by the parent for other purposes, but it is marketed primarily as an accessory for the car seat. The purpose of the foam tray is to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides. We believe it will keep the child occupied and thus promote the use of the seat by keeping the child happy and engaged in his own activities. It should prevent boredom on long trips in a car seat.

The foam tray is patented and our client is the licensee of the patent owner. We desire to have your interpretation as to whether our client can continue to market this tray. In the opinion of our client, it does not present a safety hazard and does not present any barrier as to whether or not a parent affixes the harness straps that are a part of the car seat.

2) Section 6.1.2 provides for the dynamic test procedure. Section 6.1.2.1.2 provides what is called "Test Configuration II", which is the test required at twenty miles per hour without the tether strap affixed and without the restraining straps of the system affixed to the dummy. One of the systems under consideration by our client would be the use of an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child. It is contemplated that the impact shield would be removeable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode. If such is the case, then the five point harness, that is an integral part of the Strolee car seat, would be used as the restraining system. The car seat would be affixed to the car in the usual manner. Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested as to whether the Strolee car seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II. In this connection, your attention is respectively directed to the difference between the Strolee restraint system and the system employed by the Bobby-Mac car seat. With the Bobby-Mac car seat, when the removeable shield is taken off of the car seat, the sole restraining device that affixes the car seat to the automobile does not function properly. Such a condition does not exist in the Strolee seat. The attachment of the automobile seat belt to the car seat is totally independent of the system designed to hold the child in the car seat.

The foregoing request for your interpretation is not to be deemed our acquiesence in the legal propriety of the regulations. While our client does not contest your right to regulate the juvenile car seat, it has strong objections to the regulations themselves and, as appears from my other letter, the apparent discriminatory manner in which these regulations may be enforced.

May we please hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

One final point, in our meeting, you indicated that you will be issuing a number of interpretive opinions in response to manufacturers' inquiries of your department. We would appreciate receiving written copies of all interpretive opinions that are published by your department.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: nht80-2.50

DATE: 06/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yarbrough manufacturing Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your telephone conversation of April 23, 1980, with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

YARBROUGH MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.

March 24, 1980

Nelson Erickson -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT

RE: FMVSS No. 115. VIN for trailers to tow Boats, Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Utility and similar items.

Dear Sir:

Last week, we discussed by phone the information needed to properly complete section 2 of the new vehicle identification number. I have put together the data on our trailers with a sample serial number. Will you please review this information and let me know if it complies with all the provisions of No. 115 concerning our type of trailers.

Enclosures:

1. Sample serial number

2. Part number information to be used for section 2 of VIN.

3. Information on model designations with examples and explanations.

4. Coded locations of assembly points where serial numbers are assigned and affixed to trailers. For use in 2nd Character of section 3.

5. Sales literature with specifications

Our engineering department would keep your files updated with information on new models added to our line.

Since we begin assigning new serial numbers in July of each year, I would appreciate receiving your written comments as soon as possible. If you would prefer to discuss any of this by phone, please call me at 1-800-433-8863.

Sincerely,

Milton M. Singleton, Vice President

[Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht80-2.6

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Florida, Earl H. Wright

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. Earl H. Wright Administrator Department of Education State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline fuel systems to liquefied fuel systems.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter that we issued last year which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. That letter should answer all of your questions. Please note that an individual or an entity such as a State agency or school board can make modifications to his or its own vehicles with impunity as far as Federal requirements are concerned, if that individual or entity performs the work. For example, district school board employees could make the conversion you desire without regard to Federal requirements, whereas a motor vehicle repair business or the L.P. gas dealer would be responsible for complying with all Federal requirements.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[letter dated 8/17/79 from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 21, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At least two county district school boards in Florida have converted school buses from a gasoline fuel system to a liquefied petroleum (L.P.) gas fuel system. Other district school boards are considering making such conversions to school buses.

The conversions include removing, from the school bus chassis, a fuel system certified to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the chassis manufacturer as meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity, and installing in its place an L.P. gas system that has not met certification requirements for F.M.V.S.S. 301. In some cases the conversions were done to new buses immediately after they were delivered to the school district by the manufacturer. In other cases the conversions were done to one- or two-year old used school buses. Some conversions were made by L.P. gas dealers and some were made by district school board employees.

In that some school buses have been converted to L.P. gas and there is an indicating that such a conversion program involving hundreds of school buses in Florida may be begun soon, I am requesting answers as follows:

(1) If a state agency, or person, knowingly renders inoperative a fuel system installed on a school bus in compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 301 by removing the fuel system from the bus and replacing it with a fuel system that does not meet the requirements of F.M.V.S.S. 301, has the state agency, or person, committed a violation of a federal law or of a rule or safety standard authorized by law?

(2) If a state agency, or person, is found to be responsible for noncompliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard because of actions described in item (1) above, is there a penalty for being responsible for such noncompliance?

Your consideration and response to the above request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Earl H. Wright Administrator School Transportation

ID: nht80-2.7

DATE: 04/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

April 18, 1980

SUBJECT: Interpretation of Part 581 Damage Criteria

FROM: Chief Counsel

To: Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

You have requested an interpretation of the term "original contour" as it appears in the Part 581 bumper standard, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8), and 581.5(c)(11)(i) and (ii). The standard limits the amount of deviation from original contour permitted for the vehicle exterior surfaces and bumper face bar 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact. You ask whether original contour refers to the configuration of the exterior surface or face bar prior to the commencement of any testing, or prior to a particular test impact or test mode.

In establishing the Part 581 standard, NHTSA concluded that the typical vehicle will be involved in more than one lowspeed bumper impact over its expected life. In order to assure a performance level which meets the demands of normal driving conditions, the agency determined that bumpers should be capable of providing an acceptable level of damage resistance in a series of impacts. In keeping with this purpose, "original contour", as used in the Part 581 protective criteria, should be established prior to the initiation of any testing, and the tested surface or face bar should not deviate from this contour beyond the prescribed limits throughout the pendulum and barrier test sequences. The other interpretations would not serve the stated purpose, since they are based on a changing reference condition and would permit damage to accumulate from test to test.

Frank Berndt

ID: nht80-2.9

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Home Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1980, to Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether the labels and installation diagrams required by the standard must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In addition, you asked whether an upholstery tag, required by State law, attached to the seat must comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. Because the label, installation diagram and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 provides that "any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact" shall meet the performance requirements of the standard "when tested as a composite with the other materials." Thus, if the label, diagram and tag are affixed to the plastic shell of the restraint so that they adhere to the shell at every point of contact, they would be tested with the shell. If the label, diagram and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

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

Steven L. Oesh Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 27, 1980

Dear Mr. Oesh:

As you know, the Standard No. 213 requires labeling and installation diagrams. Normally, these labels are paper with a self-adhesive backing.

Some states require upholstery tags that are also normally paper, and almost always are torn off by the customer.

Our plastic shell to which the labels will be attached and the pad assemblies themselves will conform to the Flammability requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

As the two small labels and the upholstery tag are insignificant compared to the assemblies to which they are attached, and the method of testing is with a 4" x 14" specimen which is large compared to the labels, would paper labels as applied in our application be allowed? I would appreciate your immediate attention to this question.

Don Gerken Product Engineer