ID: nht76-1.16

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition of April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have "keyed" end fittings at both ends. We interprete "keyed" fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle.

This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle in only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposes this change.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria.

Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 FR 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that ". . . brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2. . ." is therefore incorrect.

With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of "brake fluid" published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase "polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock" in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Welfred M. Redler, P. E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance

April 9, 1976 PETITION

Ref.: Amendment to Standards FMVSS 106 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 19

In notice 19 DOT has proposed that S.5.2.2 should be altered, in that, the labeling information could be eliminated as soon as the brake hose becomes a brake hose assembly. According to S.5.2.1 the hose manufacturer was given the option to interrupt the 2 stripes by information according to S.5.2.2 and additional information.

We understand this DOT recommendation to mean that in future permanent brake assemblies do not require labelling information so long as the manufacturer documents all hoses before assembly. i.e the brake hose does not require labelling according to S.5.2.2 because the hoses are documented and can thereby always be identified

Notice 19 indicates that our interpretation in assuming the above is correct. Provided that our interpretation is correct then, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment and endorse it.

Although the deleting of S.5.2.2 for brake hoses used in permanent brake hose assemblies is apparent, the requirement S.5.2.1 which states: "each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes" is still required for brake hoses not part of a brake hose assembly.

The stripes are a visible indication of hose twisting during assembly. We are convinced that the brake hose marking would be unnecessary if the brake hose assembly could, by mechanical means, be prevented from twisting during and after installation. This mechanical means would eliminate the necessity of having two marking stripes.

Taking into account the foregoing we petition that S.5.2.1. should be amended to require the two marking stripes only when this mechanical means is not a part of the brake hose assembly in both ends.

We propose that FMVSS 106 should be amended as follows:

S.5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, with the exception of those brake hose assemblies which have keyed ends (preventing twisting during and after instalation), shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opp. . . .

This amendment would prevent the unnecessary duplication of safety requirements thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Ref.: FMVSS 116 49 CFR 571 116 Docket No. 71-13

The formulation of the definition S.4. suggests that brake hose inner tube stock must be of polychloroprene (CR). We have been using SBR for our inner tubes for years with excellent results. Naturally they meet the USA Standard FMVSS 106 and also have US approval through AAMVA based on a certificate from the independent test laboratory "ETL".

As the US standards FMVSS 106 has never objected to our brake hose material with regards to its properties and suitability for use in its designed environment we fail to understand why SBR together with the other materials EPR, EPDM, buthyl etc. are not considered suitable for use as brake hose inner tube.

May we suggest therefore that the definition S4 be formulated in such a way that this point is more clearly defined. In our opinion this should be changed to cover all materials which have a stable resistance to brake fluid.

Yours faithfully -- ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ID: bombardier.ztv

Mr. William K. Cooper. P.E.
Vice President
Engineering and System Assurance
Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc.
1501 Lebanon Church Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-1491

Dear Mr. Cooper:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, requesting an interpretation as to whether the Guided Light Transit (GLT) that Bombardier is preparing to market is a "motor vehicle." You stated that the GLT "is similar in appearance and function to a European street tram, but runs on rubber tires and is guided during street operation by a single rail set into the roadway." You further stated "Propulsion is electric via an overhead catenary system." You argued that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle," "owing to its primary operation in a guided mode where the operator is not required to steer."

You provided additional information in a CD-ROM that you left with us after meeting with Taylor Vinson of this Office, and other agency representatives, on December 10, 2002. We have downloaded this information and it, with your letter, forms the basis for our response.

The information indicates that the rubber-tired GLT is intended to bridge the gap between articulated buses and steel-wheeled trams. The GLT is a vehicle consisting of three passenger-carrying units, and contains 41 designated seating positions. The overall length of the GLT is 24.5 m and its "empty weight" is 25,000 kgs. In the GLTs "Maintenance/Failure Management Mode," the operator "provides steering, traction and braking for limited failure management and non-revenue service maneuvers." We understood from our meeting that "non-revenue service maneuvers" refers to the driving of the GLT, under its own power, between the guide rail and the structure where it is housed. In going to and from the guide rail, the GLT does not carry passengers.

You have also presented information indicating that the GLT complies, or will comply, with all but one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that would apply to it as a "bus" with a GVWR more than 4,536 kg. were the GLT determined to be a "motor vehicle."The one exception is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, where "Discussion required with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA") is noted (in our view, the GLT would comply with FMVSS No. 208 were the operator provided with, at a minimum, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (a lap belt for pelvic restraint) that complies with the specifications of S4.4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208, referenced by the primary requirement for a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, S4.4.3.1.).

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, a "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." Under a literal application of this definition, the GLT would be a "motor vehicle" because it is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets and it is not operated exclusively on a rail line.

Nevertheless, we interpret the definition to exclude vehicles operated on a rail line even if the vehicles are rubber-tired, instead of steel-wheeled, and if the rail line is part of a public road. Importantly, we observe that the GLT is "operated exclusively on a rail line" at all times that it is carrying passengers other than a driver; i.e., when the safety of the passengers on the public roadways would be the paramount concern of this agency. At such times, it is electrically powered by an overhead catenary, consistent with other public transit vehicles such as trams and trolleys that are operated exclusively on rails. We further note that the GLT exceeds in length articulated (two-unit) buses typically regulated by this agency and due to its GVWR, is excused from compliance with some FMVSS that apply to buses. Therefore, we have concluded that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle."

Even if we decided that the GLT were a motor vehicle, there would be public policy reasons as well for NHTSA not to regulate it. Bombardiers submission also indicates that the GLT complies or will comply with such safety regulations of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as may apply to it (49 CFR Part 665). We have, on two occasions, relinquished our jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" where it appeared they were more appropriately regulated by another Federal agency. Initially, we considered mobile homes to be "motor vehicles" because they used the public roads in traveling from the place of manufacture to one or more home sites during their life, requiring them to be equipped in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to "trailers." We found it more appropriate for mobile homes to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The second situation involved motorized bicycles. We distinguished those that were powered 100 percent of the time by a motor from those where the power source was primarily muscular and the motor operated intermittently as an assist, such as in climbing hills. We found it more appropriate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulate power-assist bicycles. Because the GLT is not a transit vehicle of the type usually regulated by this agency, it is more appropriate for FTA to regulate it than it would be for NHTSA to do so.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.5/15/03

ID: nht95-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Around 1985 * , NHTSA significantly reduced the Amber (Yellow) Photometric output minimals for all Rear Amber Turn Signal Lights. This reduction was implemented, I believe, partially as an act of Common Sense and partially as a positive Harmonization gesture to European Vehicle Safety people. Whereas these European Safety people did then and still do require "significantly less" Amber Photometric Output area, which was not correspondingly reduced when NHTSA reduced the required Photometric Output. Further, the Europeans still require significantly less Area for Amber lenses than the U.S. still requires.

* Presently I can't find the Federal Register Announcement with Details on this issue, however, I will attempt to send it later. I do know this data is readily available from your Docket Files.

European Safety leaders, I've been told, have "tests" that substantiate their position that a "Smaller" and less bright Amber Turn Singal yields "less conspicuosity", which is a desirable feature when compared to the Conspicuosity demanded by the Very Important Red Brake Lights . . . and rightfully so. As one can see for themselves . . . just the fact that a Turn Signal is Amber and not Red (as are all other Rear Safety Lights) makes it adequately "conspicuous", even if it is "smaller" and significantly less bright compared to the Brake Lights.

Also, European Scientists contend they have always had a "safer system" than the U.S. System as they have always required Two Brightly Lit Brake Lights, whereas the U.S. System allows only One Brake Light to be illuminated, leaving the other as a "Red" Turn (Blinking) Signal -- They contend that the U.S. approach can confuse the human mind and in fact, perhaps be comprehended as an Impending Turn and "not specifically" as a Braking Action whereas their system using. Two Brake Lights - both clearly Lit - means nothing but "Braking . . . Danger!"

They indicate that their smaller in size and brightness, Rear Amber Turn Signal "clearly indicates" to following traffic the situation when a Turn is occurring by itself or simultaneously with the Braking Action.

In any case, I believe our U.S. NHTSA Rulemakers of several years past were in error or experienced an oversight when they reduced and Harmonized the U.S.'s Rear Amber Turn Singal's required output but at the same time did not reduce the "Area" of output which would have kept the "Density * "of U.S. Amber Lights output about the same as the Europeans have found to be effective . . . thus making the U.S. more or less completely Harmonized with the New EU Specifications effective January 1, 1996.

* "Density", a better layman's term than getting into Luminesec and Luminous intensity . . . at this time.

Any American that is actively involved in the Manufacturing of Vehicle Lights knows it is ludicrous to require U.S. Manufacturers to Design Amber Turn Singal lenses in the 12in<2> range * , and then ask them to try and Balance our Trade by attempting to sell larger than necessary (therefore more expensive Lights) in Europe whereas European Manufacturers enjoy the advantage over U.S. Manufacturers of less expense simply because of size.

* which is what is now required for Big Rig and RV Rear Amber Turn Signals

I am asking that a better Trade Balance Policy be adopted as well as seeing that Common Sense reasoning prevails at NHTSA by asking that this situation be corrected.

If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a "Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request" and given consideration for "rapid processing" through the Public Commenting period. I seriously doubt if any American Company or Engineer is in possession of any Scientific Data that would refute what reasoning and facts I have presented here. By reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 in<2> to approximately 8 in<2> or 6 in<2>, the U.S. would have more practical Rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety.

Please handle this expendiently!

Yours truly,

Dennis G. Moore President

P.S. Please understand that I believe I speak primarily for the "Big Rig", Small Trailer and RV Type Lighting Manufacturers in the U.S., not for the typical S.A.E. Detroit Auto Designer and/or Auto Engineer.

My type of manufacturing is forced, through extreme competition pressure, to make Multi-purpose Rear Lights for about $ 3.00 each in order to be competitive here in the U.S., whereas, Detroit Auto Stylists know that small Amber Turn Signal Lights on Autos look puny and degrading to their potential customers. They know the bigger these Amber Lenses are, the better they look, the more they cost, and, therefore, the more overall profit is made on them as they are broken and replaced during the life of the Vehicle. Therefore, Detroit stylists and economists don't really want small sized Amber Turn Signals even if they know that small ones do the Safety Job they're intended to do -- they must compete in "Styling" whereas larger and more elaborate lights sell cars and makes them more money in the long run than what would be saved on small lights, whereas this is not at all true with "Other" Vehicle Lighting Manufacturers like I represent who are trying to Compete in the U.S. and Europe in the Non-Auto Vehicle Lighting business.

I believe, and apparently so do most European Safety people, that Location, Color and the Density * Output of a Safety Light is more important for "Conspicuosity" than a large lens with low output.

ID: 7577

Mr. J. W. Lawrence
Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across- the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right." For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.

ref:108 d:10/5/92

ID: 22133deddo

Mr. Daniel G. Deddo
Child-Seat Safety Products Co.
3600 Lime Street, Room 118
Riverside, CA 92501-2972





Dear Mr. Deddo:

This is in response to your letter asking for this agency's comments on your new product, the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors. Specifically, you ask whether your product complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You have developed a type of anchorage system for child restraints. The system is designed to be retrofitted to vehicles already on the road (as opposed to being installed in new vehicles by the vehicle's manufacturer or by an alterer). The anchorage system consists of three anchor points, each of which you call a "grabber." The "grabbers" consist of an O-ring type component attached to one end of a length of belt webbing. The other end of the webbing is bolted to the vehicle structure. Your sales brochure has the following description:

1. Top grabber installed at back lid of rear seat or on floor in SUV's [sport utility vehicles] or minivans, used to fasten upper child-seat tether strap.

2. Bottom grabbers ... are installed at the junction of the seat and back, to anchor child-seats and booster seats.

3. Bottom grabbers are attached to safety tested webbing and bracket, bolted to the car body pan with reinforced body washer....

In addition, you would bolt a tether strap to child restraints to attach to the "top grabber." You also provide a "nylon tether strap with hooks" that anchors to the lower "grabbers" on the vehicle seat. The nylon strap would be routed through the belt path molded into child restraints.

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA issued a safety standard for child restraint anchorage systems, Standard No. 225 (49 CFR '571.225). This standard requires all new passenger vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems meeting specified strength, configuration, marking, and other requirements. A child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower anchorages and a tether anchorage. Passenger vehicles began phasing-in the lower anchorages in September 2000, and the tether anchorage in September 1999. Because it is a "vehicle" standard, Standard No. 225 applies to new motor vehicles and not to an "aftermarket" child restraint anchorage system, such as yours, that is sold for installation on used vehicles.

Nonetheless, we believe that the requirements of Standard No. 225 are necessary to ensure that child restraint anchorage systems provide at least a minimum level of safety. Moreover, anchorage systems with features different from those required by Standard No. 225 could lead to consumer confusion, and therefore have an adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. Therefore, although the standard does not apply to aftermarket systems, we urge you to assess whether your system is consistent with Standard No. 225's requirements, and to make appropriate changes.

While Standard No. 225 does not apply to your product, under NHTSA's enabling statute we consider your product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. ''30118-30221). In the event that you or we determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. For example, if your child restraint anchorage system performs poorly in restraining a child restraint, we may determine that a safety-related defect exists, in which case we could require you to remedy the problem free of charge.

You should also be aware that our statute prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. '30122). If the installation of your product in a motor vehicle results in the vehicle no longer complying with any applicable FMVSS, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed your product would have violated the make inoperative provision. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make inoperative provision. Similarly, if the modification of child restraints (by bolting on tether straps) results in the restraints no longer meeting our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213), any party listed in '30122 modifying the restraint would be subject to substantial civil penalties.

It is impossible for us to determine from the material you submitted whether your system would perform well in a crash. However, we would like to take this opportunity to raise the following issues about your design.

Strength and Durability

We do not know whether your system would be able to securely contain a child restraint system in a crash. It appears that the grabbers are simply bolted to the car body pan with washers, with little or no reinforcement of the vehicle structure. Without reinforcement, the vehicle seat and/or structure may not be able to withstand the crash forces imposed on them. Further, the webbing of the bottom grabbers are routed vertically from the vehicle floor pan through the vehicle seat "bight" (the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back), then lie along the top of the vehicle cushion where they attach to the child restraint. In a frontal crash, the forward motion of the child restraint could cause the bottom grabbers to straighten in the forward direction, which could displace the bottom seat cushion and result in excessive forward translation of the child restraint and excessive excursion of a child occupant's head and chest. In addition, the bottom grabbers are positioned several inches forward of the seat bight. Forward-mounted anchors can allow excessive forward displacement of a child restraint in a frontal collision, especially if the child restraint is not secured at the top tether anchor, which can increase the likelihood of head impacts with structures forward of the child. We strongly urge you to fully assess whether your anchorage system will adequately retain a child restraint and child in a crash, particularly since parents and caregivers might use the Grabber system in lieu of the vehicle's belts.

You specifically asked about Standard Nos. 209 and 210. These standards do not apply to your product. Standard No. 209 applies to straps, webbing or similar devices designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident. However, we recommend that your product meet the standard's specifications, since they increase the likelihood that straps, webbing and buckles perform satisfactorily throughout the life of a vehicle. Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt anchorages on new motor vehicles.

Drilling Holes in Child Restraints

In your letter, you ask whether you are violating any Federal motor vehicle safety standards by drilling holes in child restraints to attach the top anchors of your product. If by drilling holes a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business affects a child restraint system such that it can no longer meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, a violation of the make inoperative provision, discussed above, would result. In addition, the equipment you provide and the installation of it on the child restraint must not result in safety-related defects.

Consumer Information

I note that in your sales brochure advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors you state that your product is "in conformity with NHTSA & FMSS CR 49, 571 and 596, New Federal Motor Standards." Since no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, you cannot claim--in fact, you are prohibited from claiming--that your product complies with Federal standards. Thus, you must remove this statement and any similar statements from any materials advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors.

The brochure also states on its front cover: "A recent new ruling by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that child-seats and booster seats in all passenger vehicles must be restrained with the [sic] new 3-point safety anchors when traveling...." This statement is not correct. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of vehicles and equipment, but not the use of safety systems. Pursuant to the phase-in in Standard No. 225, we are requiring new passenger vehicles to have a specific, universal child restraint anchorage system, one different from yours. Your statement, implying that NHTSA requires the use of your system, is therefore erroneous and misleading. Furthermore, Standard No. 213 excludes belt-positioning booster seats from the requirement to have components that fasten to the child restraint anchorage system. For all these reasons, your statement need to be corrected.

Front Seat Installation

You note in your letter that you intend to install your anchorage system in the front seat of vehicles, "primarily in pickup trucks." We have strong concerns about installing child restraint anchorage systems at seating positions where an air bag is present, due to the hazards associated with deploying air bags, especially for infants in a rear-facing child restraint. The presence of a child restraint anchorage system at the front seating position could mistakenly imply to consumers that the seating position is suitable for a child restraint. For this reason, Standard No. 225 prohibits installation of a child restraint anchorage system at a seating position with an air bag in new vehicles. We urge you to recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, even in vehicles without an air bag. If a rear seat is unavailable, as in a pickup truck, the owner should consider installing an air bag on-off switch. Information about the switches can be obtained from our website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

State Laws and Private Liability

Individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of child restraint anchorage systems a vehicle must have to be registered or operated in that State. Moreover, compliance with our regulations and standards does not insulate you from civil liability. You might wish to consult with a private attorney about such civil liability issues.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers for your information. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213#225
d.8/22/01

ID: nht92-3.25

DATE: October 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

COPYEE: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association; Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association; Ford Motor Company; Freightliner Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from J. W. Lawrence to Administrator, NHTSA (9203090012)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to the Administrator on the subject "Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements."

In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned "for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . ." However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of "on the rear" as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself.

Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments.

The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395:

"Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to

the right for the right lamp. *** To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle."

Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters.

NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was:

"Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters."

You state that the term "simultaneously visible" does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).

First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members.

Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear.

As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is "from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp." (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference

for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left "for" the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: "signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right."

For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one.

The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, "signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle", which is specified as "of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right" (J586), "of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J1398), and "from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right" (J585e).

TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility.

Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying

angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle.

NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the exiting level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic.

This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph.

Finally, you comment that Table II "does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers". We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone.

ID: 7383

Mr. Steven Henderson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield
Montreal PQ H3A 1B1
Canada

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your letter of August 11, 1992, commenting on my response to you of June 29 with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions regulating the modulation of motorcycle headlighting systems.

In my letter, I informed you that the device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108, and would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with the standard. I also advised you that if a motorcycle owner could install the device, there would be no violation of Federal law, and that the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states.

In your latest letter, you "agree that the device contravenes the letter of DOT Standard No. 108 as it presently stands." However, "if the device violates the letter of the law while satisfying the spirit or inferred intent of the law in each case," you believe "that the granting of an exception should be considered by the NHTSA."

As I understand it, your principal argument as raised on page 2 of your August 11 letter is that it is improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon the specifications of that section, are misplaced.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, your device becomes subject to another provision of Standard No. 108 that I did not mention in my June letter. Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the installation, as original equipment, of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. Application of paragraph S5.1.3 returns us to my comments in June that your device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Thus, under paragraph S5.1.3, installation of the device as aftermarket equipment, if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would continue to be prohibited by Federal law.

Your latest letter also addresses the issues of taillamp and turn signal conformance. You argue that

"a taillight's purpose is to mark the rear of a motor vehicle during nighttime driving when it would otherwise be invisible. For this reason the law requires that taillights be lit at night. The law makes no such requirement during the day. The law does require that motorcycle headlights be lit during the day. * * * At night the taillight will always be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10(d) because the flasher device is only able to induce taillight flicker during daylight hours due to the photocell circuitry incorporated to prevent the headlamp from generating strobe effects at night. Therefore, the device is in compliance with S5.5.10(d) as it will cause the taillight to flash only at times that it is not required by law to be lit."

The law that applies to your argument is Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.5.7(b) states in pertinent part that "On each . . . motorcycle . . . when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps . . . shall also be activated." Thus, under Standard No. 108 the taillamps must always be activated when the headlamps are activated.

The device also functions through the horn button to cause the turn signal lamps to flash at a rate higher than the maximum permitted by Standard No. 108. In your view, the situation in which the turn signal and horn button are in simultaneous use will be rare. However, if they are used together, "the SAE-specified turn signal flash of 1-2 hz will be perceptually present, the hazard signal flash of 10 hz will also be perceptually present at the same location, and the two signals will not interfere."

We consider that paragraph S5.1.3 applies here as well, and that a flash of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz. There could be another undesirable consequence as well. When NHTSA proposed allowing modulating headlamps, commenters were concerned that the flashing might trigger a photic reaction, akin to an attack of epilepsy, in onlookers. NHTSA observed that the reaction was most likely to occur at a frequency of 10 hz against a very dark background. Although your device does not operate at night, its frequency is at the threshold where photic reactions can occur, and we want to bring this fact to your attention.

The agency shares your concern with improving the detectability of motorcycles and their riders. You have suggested writing an "exception" in Standard No. 108 for a period of one or two years so that the safety benefits of the device can be evaluated. We have a procedure under which a manufacturer of motorcycles can petition for a temporary exemption of up to two years, applicable to 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that it would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Perhaps you can interest a manufacturer in petitioning for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 108 on this basis.

You may also petition the agency for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 in a manner that would allow your device. A petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change in the standard is necessary, and a brief description of the changes which should be made. This means that you should show how your device is expected to improve safety, or, at a minimum, not decrease the existing level of safety. The agency has no plans to initiate rulemaking on its own initiative to permit your device.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/28/92

ID: 2346y

Mr. R.M. Cooper
Vice President, Engineering
Gillig Corporation
Box 3008
Hayward, CA 94540-3008

Dear Mr. Cooper:

This responds to your letter asking this agency to consider a problem your company faces with respect to Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, you asked how some of your buses could be certified as complying with the emergency exit labeling requirements set forth in Standard 217 for buses other than school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 provides that, in buses other than school buses, each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" followed by concise operating instructions, describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. The purpose of this requirement is to identify for bus occupants the location and explain the use of specially-installed emergency exits. As I understand your letter, you have no difficulties providing appropriate instructions in the specified location.

Paragraph S5.5.1 continues with the following language:

When a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label...that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space.

The terms "adjacent seat" and "occupant space" are defined in S4 of Standard 217 as follows:

"Adjacent seat" means a designated seating position located so that some portion of its occupant space is not more than 10 inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit.

"Occupant space" means the space directly above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the seat faces.

You stated that many of your buses have seats that face the aisle and that back up against windows designated as emergency exits. These aisle-facing seats are "adjacent seats" with respect to the emergency exits. The release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the "occupant space" for these aisle-facing seats, since the release mechanisms are behind, not above, these seats. You enclosed a group of photographs to further illustrate this situation.

Since the release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the occupant space of these adjacent aisle-facing seats, paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 requires a label indicating the location of the release mechanism for the emergency exit to be placed within the occupant space for these seats. You have noted that the occupant space for these seats does not include any place to which this label could be attached. The nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the aisle-facing seats face is the aisle facing seat on the opposite side of the bus. There are no intervening objects other than narrow vertical stanchions in the center of the aisle. Additionally, you suggested that placing the label on the floor or ceiling of the bus would not serve the purposes of this requirement, since those locations would not be readily visible to the seated occupant in an emergency situation.

In response to your letter, we have carefully considered the labeling requirements of S5.5.1 as they apply to aisle-facing seats in front of windows that serve as emergency exits. The final rule adopting this additional labeling requirement explained that NHTSA was concerned that an occupant of an adjacent seat might hinder egress through an emergency exit if the occupant did not know how to use the emergency exit. See 37 FR 9394, at 9395; May 10, 1972. In instances in which the release mechanism itself is not within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label within the occupant space directing the occupant of the seat to the emergency exit instructions will help reduce the likelihood that the occupants would inadvertently obstruct egress through the emergency exits.

NHTSA's goal of minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits is equally applicable to forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. However, the means of achieving that goal (i.e., placing a label within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, if the release mechanism is not within that occupant space) may not be equally successful for forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. The agency did not focus upon aisle-facing seats when it adopted this labeling requirement. With respect to forward-facing seats, it is relatively simple to locate a label within the occupant space that will be readily visible both to seated occupants and to persons standing in the aisle, as required by S5.5.2. However, with respect to aisle-facing seats, there may not be any location within the occupant space of such seats where a label could be placed so that the label would be visible to occupants of the seat and to persons standing in the aisle. If the labels were not visible in an emergency, such labels would not further NHTSA's goal of minimizing inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits.

Accordingly, we plan to issue a notice proposing to amend and clarify the requirements of S5.5.1 of Standard 217 as they apply to aisle-facing seats. Please note that, unless and until a final rule amending S5.5.1 of Standard 217 becomes effective, the current requirements of S5.5.1 remain in effect for aisle-facing seats. However, the agency believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to enforce the requirement in S5.5.1 that additional information be labeled within the occupant space of aisle-facing seats given the uncertainty that such labels will serve the purpose for which the labeling requirements were established, as noted above. Accordingly, until the agency makes a final decision on the proposed rulemaking mentioned above, NHTSA will not take any enforcement actions against bus manufacturers that do not place a label indicating the location of the nearest emergency exit release mechanism within the occupant space of adjacent aisle-facing seats.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:217 d:3/20/90

ID: 15319.jeg

Mr. Ottar Cato Olsen
Project Engineer
Safety & Homologation
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo
NORWAY

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Paul Atelsek of my staff, asking several questions about our safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You first ask about a proposed design for a passenger air bag (PAB) on-off switch for "two seat cars." You state:

The proposed solution for deactivating the PAB is as follows:

• Turn the ignition switch to start position . . .;
• The start position on the ignition key will activate a PAB switch;
• The PAB switch, located on the top of the steering column cover, can now be pushed to activate/deactivate the PAB;
• If the PAB is deactivated, a yellow light in the center console (visible for both people in the front) will be turned on.

It is only possible to change the PAB status when the ignition key is in the start position.

You asked whether this system would meet NHTSA's requirements, and whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB."

By way of background information, NHTSA has established specific requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. These requirements are set forth in S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208. I have enclosed a copy of that section revised as of October 1, 1996, and a final rule published on January 6, 1997 (Docket 74-14, Notice 109) which amended that section.

As you will see, your proposed design would not meet the requirements of S4.5.4. For example, it would not meet the requirement specified in S4.5.4.2 that a passenger air bag manual cut-off device must be separate from the ignition switch for the vehicle, "so that the driver must take some action with the ignition key other than inserting it or turning it in the ignition switch to deactivate the passenger air bag." Also, it would not meet the requirement in S4.5.4.3 that the telltale light be located on the dashboard. As to your question concerning whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB," S4.5.4 includes several requirements for the display. Among other things, S4.5.4.3 specifies that the telltale must be yellow, and must have the identifying words "AIR BAG OFF" on the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale.

You next ask when the "new FMVSS 201" will influence PIVCO. You state that PIVCO is a small car manufacturer, with only one vehicle line, producing 5,000 cars a year.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact was amended by a final rule published on August 18, 1995 (62 FR 16718). This final rule, which established new requirements for head protection, was amended by a notice published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718).

The standard provides manufacturers with four phase-in options for meeting its requirements.

These phase-in options are not dependent on the number of vehicles produced by a manufacturer. Options one and two, found in S6.1.1. and S6.1.2 of the Standard, provide that certain percentages of production manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must meet the new requirements. The third option, found in S6.1.3 of the Standard, states that manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999 but that all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. This option, which provides longer lead time than the first two options, was intended to accommodate manufacturers with limited product lines.

The fourth option is applicable only to final stage manufacturers. The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." If PIVCO is a "final stage manufacturer," it need not produce any vehicles that comply before September 1, 2002. However, all vehicles manufactured on or after that date must comply.

There is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief.

Finally, you ask about contact persons within NHTSA. You ask whether it is OK for all communications between PIVCO and NHTSA to go through Mr. Atelsek, and whether there is any other way of communicating with NHTSA, e.g., by fax or e-mail.

In communicating with NHTSA, PIVCO should contact the specific office or person for which it has relevant questions or other business, to the extent it has the knowledge to do so. Requests for legal interpretation should be sent to Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590 (FAX 202-366-3820). Questions regarding Standard 208 should be directed to Mr. Edward Glancy (eglancy@nhtsa.dot.gov). Inquiries about Standard 201 should be directed to Mr. Otto Matheke (omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d.11/5/97

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD