ID: nht94-2.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5 .3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

ID: nht95-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 17, 1995

FROM: Randall B. Clark -- A Concerned Citizen

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDALL B. CLARK (A43; STD. 108; VSA 30122(6)

TEXT: I respectfully request clarification on the following paragraphs S5.1.1.27(a), Table III & Table IV, located in the "Code of Federal Regulations".

I contend the required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment requirements are the minimum requirements ONLY and do not state that this is the maximum stop lamps allowed on the back of any automobile.

In other words, my automobile has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it. The car also has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that "Subaru of America" thinks the procedure is against the law. They have cited the above paragraphs & Tables as their authority.

I would appreciate a specific explanation from the "EXPERTS" stating that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States.

Thank you for your dedicated efforts on my behalf to clarify the correct point of view on Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment.

P. S. I have enclosed the specific paragraphs & Tables discussed in my letter.

(ENCLOSURE OMITTED)

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

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

ID: nht72-6.16

DATE: 12/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Center for Auto Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of 20 November, 1972, concerning alleged non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagon of American on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(8) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagon to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1949 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available" as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).

We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions of non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht69-2.1

DATE: 03/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Hail Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, to the Office of Standards Preparation, concerning the proposed lighting equipment on your dump trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing 701b1907 dated February 20, 1969, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the following exceptions:

1. The required license plate lamp is not shown.

2. The minimum mounting height for reflectors is 15 inches.

3. With respect to maximum mounting zones for lamps and reflectors, the limiting dimensions of 16, 30, and 24 inches indicated on your drawing appear to be too liberal for a trailer with essentially square corners.

With reference to Notes 2 and 3 on your drawing, certain restrictions as specified in paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 are applicable for combination lamps.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only, and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from (Illegible Word) responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: aiam1447

Dear Mr. Riechel: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our dispositio of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires 'no action' by vehicle occupants.; The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt fo restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.; The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a 'passive restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):; >>>The concept of an occupant protection system that requires 'n action by vehicle occupants' as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.<<<; The question of what constitutes 'no action by vehicle occupants' in vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.; Entry and exit action 'that requires no action other than would b required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle' means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.; The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once th occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any 'additional action' is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.; The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a huma occupant enter the vehicle without taking any 'additional actions' to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exits, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.; This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive bel system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3616

Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0004

"Dear Mr. Malinowski: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Le McCallum, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to his invention, a tie rod 'safety bracket.' You stated that the product would typically be installed by a vehicle owner to reduce tie rod end wear. As explained below, while no Federal safety standard directly applies to your client's product, he may nevertheless have certain responsibilities under this agency's regulations. As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the 'Safety Act') authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials, the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has no safety standard directly about tie rods or safety brackets used with tie rods. As for installation of your client's device on vehicles in the aftermarket, such installations may be limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If installation of your client's product resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with a safety standard, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the product would have rendered inoperative a device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a standard. To avoid a 'rendering operative' violation, your client should examine his product to determine if installing his product would result in the vehicle no longer complying with a standard's requirements. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your client's product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the 'tire rod safety bracket' are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your client's product, your client as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the part so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the part with an identical or reasonably equivalent part which does not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5026

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative Code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below. Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that: 'Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation.' S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that 'The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated...' (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131. You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131. Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, 'any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated.' (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3081

Dear Senator Boren: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.; Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express m admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.; The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from the 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit *at least* 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.; Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat woul change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary 'to begin the entire testing process for certification again.' This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to (sic) passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.; Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would pose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for you constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.; It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.; In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook