ID: nht94-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. and Mrs. Hal Sullivan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 8/30/93 From Hal Sullivan To NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter to David Elias, formerly of this office, requesting an interpretation of the term "rated cargo load" used in 49 CFR @ 567.5. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state in your letter that you purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. You state that, if this motor home is equipped with "the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks," it will exceed its gross ve hicle weight rating (GVWR) when the available water tanks are filled to capacity. You characterize this as "seriously inadequate carrying capacity," and ask if this violates NHTSA's regulations. As explained below, if a vehicle exceeds its GVWR when lo aded with its intended cargo, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties.

By way of background, @ 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to certify the compliance of its new vehicles with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA issued its vehicle certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) to implement @ 114. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from failing to comply with any regulation issued under @ 114. Under @ 109 of the Safety Act, violations of @ 108(a)(1)(E) are su bject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

NHTSA's certification regulation specifies the content of the certification label, and requires manufacturers to assign a GVWR to its new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weig ht of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable sa fety standards. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR @ 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR

2

"shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.)

There is no express definition for the term "rated cargo load" in Part 567 or elsewhere in NHTSA's regulations. However, NHTSA expects the GVWR (which includes rated cargo load) to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, we ight, load-carrying capacity and intended use. NHTSA is concerned about the potentially adverse effects on safety that might result from assigning too low a GVWR to a vehicle. NHTSA recognizes that vehicle overloading may create a serious safety proble m and will take appropriate action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, when operated in its intended manner, exceeds the assigned GVWR.

Thank you for bringing this matter about the Pace Arrow to our attention. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting you for more information about your experience with the vehicle. Meanwhile, if you have further questions, please co ntact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/6/94 From Ivan Bost To Mary Versailles (OCC-9864)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bost:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994, requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 poun ds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver.

Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A "rear designated seating position" is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An "outboard d esignated seating position" is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of th e vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Sectio n S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 , with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachabl e upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward-facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced.

Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of

2

Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this rega rd, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake syste ms. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the stan dards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: Rick Rogers

TO: Robert Mellmuth -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/94 from John Womack to Rick Rogers (A42; STD 108); and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite

TEXT: I'd like to present an idea to the auto industry that has been an oversight for some time. An idea that can prevent tens of thousands of accidents and save thousands of lives.

The great thing is that it costs next to nothing to implement, and makes the industry shine with innovation. Here it is.

A cars brake lights should go on not only when the break pedal is pressed, but should also go on when the gas pedal is released.

There it is. Simple and effective. We're saving tenths of seconds during critical moments before a rear and accident. We're letting cars space themselves more appropriately during stop and go, bumper to bumper traffic. We're letting the person driv ing behind us know that we no longer have out foot on the gas pedal, but have motioned toward caution to either brake or to start to coast slower. Either way, we're letting the driver behind us drive more intelligently by giving them as much warning as to how our car is operating.

Lets carry the implementation of this idea one step further. Lets get sophisticated. Cars and trucks have clutches, so lets engage our brake device when the clutch is moved to neutral. This idea lends us to make two kinds of brake lights. Fully en gaged and pre-engaged. Fully engaged represents the lighting method currently being used by the auto industry. You hit your brakes and your brake light comes on. Pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lights represent brake lights that would be displayed with a lesser light intensity to prewarn the driver behind your vehicle that your vehicle may soon brake. They would go on when the gas pedal is released for cars and trucks with automatic transmissions, and would go on when a vehicle with a clutch mov es to neutral and/or when the gas pedal is released. These brake lights could be either a seperate bulb of lesser wattage, or can even be incorporated into the regular brake light bulbs as a secondary filament.

Whether pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lighting becomes a reality on the less sophisticated automobiles or not, a quicker brake signal makes sense. Todays cars are more responsive than ever, but drivers are drivers. We need all the reaction time we can get. This idea will give it.

Sometimes a simple idea can make our life simpler, and safer. Feel free to call or write if you feel this idea merits your interests in vehicle safety. I hope for the sake of drivers abroad that this idea is one the auto industry will embrace.

ID: nht94-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Green

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/14/94 From Donald Green To U.S. Department Of Transportation (OCC-9679)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while t owing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity .

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

2

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Neaga -- Johnson Controls, Inc.; Dianna Sabo -- Johnson Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/1/93 From Dan Neaga And Dianna Sabo

TEXT: Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the de lay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretati ons of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms . Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 the vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act 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 ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach s ystem surface provided for support

2

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that th e manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature f or the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back sur face as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William L. Blake -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/11/94 From William Blake To Department Of Transportation and Letter Dated 4/29/94 From William Blake To United States Department Of Transportation

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blake:

This responds to your letters of April 29 and May 11, 1994, to the Department of Transportation with respect to the importation of replacement parts for a 1985 Mercedes-Benz 280SL that was not originally manufactured to conform to Federal bumper requirem ents, and which, apparently, was not conformed after importation to comply with those requirements. Your client, who owns such a vehicle, has been informed that "it is illegal to import bumper parts which do not conform to United States crash standards and that accordingly the entire bumper must be replaced. . . ." You have asked whether it is legal to import "European bumper parts" for the vehicle in question, and for us to provide you with citations to appropriate statutes and regulations.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq..) and bumper standards under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). NHTSA is authorized to issue safety standards and bumper standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicle s and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards and bumper standards.

NHTSA has issued one bumper standard, which is set forth at 49 CFR Part 581. The standard was issued under the joint authority of the Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act. While the agency has the authority to issue bumper standards for both passenger mo tor vehicles and passenger motor vehicle equipment, it has to date only issued a bumper standard for motor vehicles. There is no applicable standard that replacement bumper components must meet, and, because of this, no prohibition against importation o f bumper system components which differ from those required for a vehicle to comply with

2

Part 581. I note that this is reflected in the lack of any provision in our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, requiring conformance of imported bumper parts.

Your second question is whether it is illegal for an owner "to participate in the installation of bumper parts which do not conform to United States standards." As we have seen, no Federal standards apply to replacement bumper parts. This means that it is not illegal for an owner or anyone else to participate in the installation of equipment that is intended to replace original bumper equipment on vehicles that were not manufactured to conform to U.S. bumper requirements. As a matter of interest, our records do not indicate that the importer of the vehicle in question, WDB1070421A026883, failed to conform it to Part 581, but we cannot verify this as the conformance documentation for the vehicle no longer exists.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/25/94 From Jerry Steffy To Dave Elias (OCC-9709)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steffy:

This responds to your request to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, for an interpretation concerning whether a motorcycle certification label may be placed in a location other than that specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. As explained bel ow, the answer is yes, the agency has permitted an alternative location in certain circumstances.

49 CFR @ 567.4(e) states that motorcycle certification labels "shall be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable w ithout moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." In your letter, you seem to refer to this intersection as the "headstock area," and ask whether the certification label can be placed elsewhere.

In an interpretation letter of November 23, 1982, to Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., (copy enclosed) NHTSA permitted the motorcycle certification label to be placed "on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side." The agency permitted the alternate location because some Suzuki motorcycles were equipped with fairings, obscuring labels placed in the specified location.

Your inquiry seems to imply that Triumph's design would cause a certification label placed in the location specified in @ 567.4(e) to be obscured. If that is the case, please contact Mr. George Shifflett of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety

2

Compliance at (202) 366-5307. NHTSA would be happy to work with you on finding an alternative location for your certification label.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/16/93 From Erika Jones To John Womack (OCC-9459)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking for our concurrence that @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a "California flammability standard" as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is Ca lifornia Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, @ 19006 and @ 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr . Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restrain ts by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today.

We hope that this explanation is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about @ 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: Allan E. McIntyre -- Vice President, Engineering and New Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Allan E. McIntyre (A43; Std. 104)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Slater:

The purpose of this letter is to request your office for an interpretation/understanding of FMVSS-104 regarding evaluation procedure or how to undertake ammendment / revision of FMVSS-104.

By way of background please note that Sprague Devices, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana both designs and markets components for windshield washer systems for trucks, buses and multipurpose vehicles. Secondly, I serve as Chairman of the SAE subcommittee re sponsible for windshield wiping and washer documents specifically SAEJ198 and 1944. I also chair a similar task force under the direction of TMC (The Maintenance Council of ATA).

My specific inquiry is regarding FMVSS-104- S4. 2.2 describing windshield washer requirement for truck, bus and multipurpose vehicles. Document lists SAE recommended Practice J942 of 11/65 (with modification). J942 has been superceded by an "a" and a " b" revision at SAE level. It also pertains specifically to PASSENGER CAR WINDSHIELD WASHER SYSTEMS.

SAE recognized the need of a document specifically addressing commerce vehicles, etc., and had chartered my subcommittee to develop such a document. J1944 is the result of our subcommittee activity and has been both approved and published in SAE Handboo k. (Copy attached). Its purpose is to follow the overall format of the J942 document while recognizing that advancements in technology allow for more strigent requirements, increased performance levels, etc. J1944 is overall a "tougher" document compa red to the J942 series.

Would the above situation allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS-104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written?

Second inquiry relates to the above also. If it is necessary to evaluate per J942 (both recognizing its' being superceded by "a" and "b" and more recently J1944) how does one petition for a revision in FMVSS-104?

There are other areas in FMVSS documents that are similar in nature to the above and therefore your response to this specific question could in essence respond to the inquiries of many.

Respectfully,

Enclosures

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104; SAE J1944 - Truck and Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System

(Text of enclosures is omitted.)