ID: nht95-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 12, 1995

FROM: K. Olsen

TO: John Womack, active Chief of Council, Office of Chief of Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. OLSEN (A43; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROB PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD

TEXT: On May 9, 1994, Dealer purchased from Manufacturer, a new 1994 16' bumper pull flatbed trailer. This trailer had two 3500 lb. GVWR axles. This trailer was purchased from the manufacturer by the Dealer equipped with used tires.

On May 17, 1994 Dealer showed trailer to Customer. Customer was told that for $ 1175.00 the trailer comes with the tires on it or for an additional $ 200.00 dealer would put new tires on the trailer. Customer chose to purchase the trailer with the u sed tires at the lower price. The trailer was wired for brakes and lights but electrical plug was left off so one could be installed to match up with the existing electrical plug on a customers vehicle. Customer's vehicle had neither a brake control or existing electrical plug, so Dealer offered to sell the Customer a brake control for customer's truck and electrical plugs for brakes and lights for an additional $ 50.00 and Dealer would install them at no additional cost. Customer chose not to purcha se brake control or electrical plugs from Dealer.

On June 10, 1994 Customer's employee pulled said trailer (that weighs 1550 lbs.) down the freeway, loaded with a Uniloader (that weighs 6000 lbs.) pulled by a half-ton, short wheel base pickup (which has a 6,000 GVWR and weighs approx. 4800 lbs.). Th e driver of the vehicle lost control of the truck and trailer and the truck and trailer turned over.

The Customer is now bringing a law suit against the Dealer charging that the accident was caused by the Dealer for selling him a new trailer with used tires (and improperly wired brakes). The investigating officer's statement on the accident report r ead "Vehicle was Southbound in the # 3 lane when the trailer began to swerve uncontrollable. Vehicle ran off of the right side of the road and overturned. The trailer was carrying a CASE UNI Loader Model IF40." "According to Dennis Platt of UHP Safety Inspection, the brakes had not been working. This was shown by rust present on the inside of the left brake drum. Also, Dennis measured the tire tread to be 1/32 of an inch on both rear tires and 2/32 of an inch on both front tires. Both front tires al so had uneven tread. The wrecker driver at Sorensen's Marine and Autobody said that it appeared the trailer brakes had not been wired properly."

The reason for this request for interpretation is to try and determine the liability of the Manufacturer, Dealer or Customer in this matter.

ID: nht95-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 13, 1995

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: Philip R. Recht, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Information, FMVSS No. 118 "Power Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN (A43; STD. 118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

This is a request for interpretation relating to the maximum squeezing force requirement in Paragraph S5 of FMVSS 118. Paragraph S5 states the maximum squeezing force performance requirements required to be met by power-operated window, partition or roo f panel systems (for simplicity we will hereinafter refer to these as "power operated systems") which are capable of being closed under conditions other than those permitted in Paragraph S4, Operating Requirements.

The purpose of Paragraph S5 is to enable manufacturers to provide power operated systems which can be closed with remote control devices capable of operation beyond the distances specified in S4 or under circumstances other than those expressly limited i n Paragraph S4 by providing an automatic reversing system that limits the squeezing force to 100 Newtons. The intent of the 100 Newton squeezing force limitation in Paragraph S5 is to avoid injury to a person whose hand may be caught in the opening of t he power operated system as it is closing.

The 100 Newton force limitation is a restriction on power-operated window and roof panel systems which must be assured of closing under all environmental conditions and especially under low temperatures or in the event of some ice or other interference i n the track of the window or roof panel. Volkswagen requests your interpretation whether a system which reverses the closing of the window partition or roof panel within the 100 Newton limitation on an initial attempt to close, but which is then capable of closing with a higher force limitation in order to overcome any resistance due to low temperature or snow and ice interference conditions would still comply with the provisions of the standard.

Such a system would operate as follows:

1. An attempt is made to close the power-operated system and because of an obstruction or resistance to closing it reverses before exerting a squeezing force of 100 Newtons or more and then stops.

2. In order to assure that the window or roof panel is closed, the operator again initiates the closing and this time the automatic reversal system is not triggered at the 100 Newton limit but at a higher force level to overcome the resistance.

The intent of the Standard and to requirement of paragraph S5 is that in the event of an initial obstruction from a human hand or possibly a pet, the system would reverse within the injury avoidance threshold of 100 Newtons. There is no specific provisi on in paragraph S5 with regard to repetitive closing operations. (The higher force level of the second closing operation is not a safety concern because the operator would be alerted to avoid action until the opening is clear and any person in the area w ould be alerted to the fact that the operator is attempting to close the window or roof panel.) Volkswagen therefore requests your interpretation whether the squeezing force limitation of Paragraph S5 applies only to the first operation of a system and n ot to subsequent operations immediately thereafter, which are separately initiated by an operator in order to assure the closing of the roof panel or power window under adverse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the window or ro of panel track.

Because the issue relates to certain vehicle design decisions, your response as soon as possible is requested and will be appreciated.

ID: nht95-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Donnell W. Morrison

TO: Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.-49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1, 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DONNELL W. MORRISON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

This in in further reference to my February 14, 1995 letter regarding the cited sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. As of this date I have not received a reply to my inquiry. A copy of the February 14 letter is enclosed.

As I indicated in my February 14 letter I am working on a project and need to know if the cited sections of the CFR have been amended to allow the rear identification lamps and the rear clearance lamps to be mounted at a location other than specified in the tables mentioned above. In other words can both the rear identification and the rear clearance lamps be mounted at bed level. The tables in Standard 108 indicate the rear lamps mentioned are to be mounted as high as practicable.

A timely response to my inquiry would be very much appreciated.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

D. W. Morrison Engr. Consultant

1005 Dr innon Drive

Morristown, Tenn. 37814

615-587 0534

February 14, 1995

Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

Dear Administrator Martinez:

I am doing some research on a project and need to know if your organization has amended the cited sections of the CFR.

The question has been raised since I notice many semi-trailers in operation on the highway with all of the rear lighting devices down at bed level. If I understand the wording of the cited sections correctly the identification lamps are to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle and on the vertical center line.

If the standards have been amended I would appreciate your furnishing me with a copy of the rule making action. Notice of Proposed Rule Making and the Final Rule.

Sincerely,

DONNELL W. MORRISON

ID: nht95-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM RANDAL K. BUSICK TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the s lider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictu res accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not b e a problem.

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

ID: nht95-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 5, 1995

FROM: Richard Mark Gergel -- Gergel, Burnette, Nickles, Grant And Leclair, P. A.

TO: Stephen P. Wood, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/23/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD MARK GERGEL (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

I am writing as a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state. As I explained to you, the litigation in which I am involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 passengers to a school to transport students which did not meet the safety standards for a "school bus" under the Act. The defendant car dealer has asserted that a trans action between a car dealer and purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce.

We have diligently searched the case law for authorities which might address this issue. The only case we have found on point is National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 948, 950 (1974). I was hoping that your office might be aware of other case authorities or interpretations by the Secretary of Transportation which might provide further legal authorities on this point.

Since the judge now has this matter under advisement, I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you need any further information from me, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

ID: nht95-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1995

FROM: Mary J. Gazich -- Owner - Clever Kids, inc.

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MARY J. GAZICH (A43; REDBOOK 2; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

My company will be marketing a new automobile accessory for children.

The "Smart Rider" is a seat back protector that is made of vinyl with two 3/4" elastic bands attached. There is a design screenprinted on the vinyl as well. This product slips over either, or both of the front seats, protects the seat back interior from kid's feet, and entertains children riding in the back seat.

Please inform me if this product meets the standards for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If so, do we need to make a statement regarding this on our packaging?

Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 27, 1995

FROM: Yvonne Roppel -- Liaison Officer, Title and Registration Services, State of Washington, Department of Licensing

TO: Phillip Reckt -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YVONNE ROPPEL (A43; REDBOOK 2; Part 580)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reckt:

I recently conferred with Dick Morse of NHTSA who asked me to request of you a written reply to my question.

I had asked Mr. Morse as to who should sign an original title application for a leased vehicle, the lessee or the lessor.

As background, I advised Mr. Morse that in Washington State the lessee is shown on the title as a registered owner and is required to sign the original application at the dealership. (This is only concerning a vehicle still under the Manufacturer's Cert ificate of Origin.) Normally the lessee is choosing the vehicle from the dealer inventory. The yearly license renewal notice is mailed to the lessee in most cases. The registered owner or lessee is liable if any legal action is filed against the vehicl e.

Mr. Morse has indicated that when the lessee is shown on the title, they would be considered a registered owner and would therefore acknowledge the odometer disclosure made bythe selling dealer. I asked if he would put this in writing at which time he i ndicated that I would have to write to your office. Therefore, I am asking if I could have a letter sent to me verifying in writing his reply.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht95-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 27, 1995

FROM: Ken Calvert -- Member of Congress

TO: Edward D. Harrill

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KEN CALVERT (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: LETTER 1:

Dear Mr. Harrill:

My office has received an authorization for a Congressional Inquiry on behalf of my constituent Mr. Alexander Patnode, SSN 043-07-7207. We are enclosing a copy for your review along with paperwork Mr. Patnode feels will be pertinent to his request.

Mr. Patnode is requesting our assistance in obtaining information regarding the purchase of an engine stand from Pep Boys Auto parts. This stand is made in China for Rally Accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. Failure of the stand caused an engine to fail, injuring his ankle. Mr. Patnode states he can't find an agency in the state that will accept or act on his complaint. After a review of Mr. Patnode's paperwork my office would appreciate a written response to his request.

Thank you for your interest in Mr. Patnode. If we may be of further assistance in this matter you may contact Genelle Stephens of my Riverside District Office. I am looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken Calvert

LETTER 2:

03/21/95

Ken Calvert 3400 Central Ave. Suite 200 Riverside, Ca. 925

Your Honor,

I need your assistance. I purchased an engine stand from Pep Boy's auto parts, in Temecula, Ca., Failure of the stand caused an engine to fall, injuring my ankle. The stand is made in China, for Rally accessory Inc. located in Miami, Florida. The s tands are obviously made without quality control. I purchased a second stand to use as evidence in my lawsuit. It did not have the same welds, which failed on the first stand. A third stand, on display at Pep Boy's, is made different from either of th e other two. It has an additional brace, welded on the lower portion, in the same area where the first stand failed. None of the stands are equipped with the large brace that appears in the assembly manual.

Home mechanics often leave engines mounted on these stands for extended periods of time. There is potential for serious injury or death to occur, should a stand fail, especially if there are children in the area. Neither Pep Boy's nor Rally seem to be taking this condition seriously.

I called the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission hot line. It took until the next day for them to respond, when they told me that they do not handle this. I find it hard to believe that this type of problem doesn't come under their jurisdiction. I haven't been able to find an agency in the state that can accept or act on my complaint. I also contacted the Consumer Affairs in the Attorney General's office, but they couldn't help me. I am enclosing pictures that I hope will illustrate my problem . Any help that you can give will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerly,

Alexander H. Patno

32840 SHEILA LANE

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

(Brochure omitted.)

LETTER 3:

April 27, 1995

John Womack, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Womack:

As we discussed by telephone, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") received an inquiry from Rep. Ken Calvert concerning what agency would have jurisdiction over an engine stand purchased by Mr. Alexander H. Patnode. The stand broke, causin g an injury to Mr. Patnode's ankle.

The Consumer Product Safety Act excludes "motor vehicle equipment," as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, from the CPSC's jurisdiction. As we discussed by phone, it appears that this engine stand is motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, I have enclosed the material we received on this incident.

Please contact me if you need anything further.

Sincerely, Harleigh Ewell

cc: The Hon. Ken Calvert

ID: nht95-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Kawa Saki Motors Corp., U.S.A

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Projector Beam Headlamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY SHETLER (A43; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 2/7/94 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/6/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER

TEXT: Attached per my telephone conversation with Mr. John Womack are the following:

1. Two drawings of projector beam headlamps a) original drawing submitted with our February 7, 1994 request for interpretation (Drawing A) b) modified drawing showing the addition of a cowling over the headlamp (Drawing B)

2. February 7, 1994 Kawasaki correspondence to NHTSA

3. May 6, 1994 correspondence from Mr. Womack

Standard 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

The subject Kawasaki motorcycle headlamp in Drawing A and B contains the upper and lower beam in one housing and is a single headlamp. However, the addition of the cowling (Drawing B), which is a permanent part of the motorcycle to which the headlamp wi ll be applied, provides the appearance of two headlamps.

My question to Mr. Womack during our telephone conversation was concerning the addition of the cowling and the interpretation of the requirements in Standard 108.

Will the revised proposed application of the projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle as seen in Drawing B meet the requirements of Standard 108?

Thank you in advance for your quick response to our inquiry.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

Regards

DRAWINGS OMITTED.

ID: nht95-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Rourke -- Director, Government and Community Affairs, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/4/95 LETTER FROM BRAD ROURKE TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right ha nd control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place th e rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the mac hine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (thou gh this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-em ission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 12 3, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use " a high-power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirement s for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low-powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist-g rip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

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