ID: nht92-6.45

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nathan W. Randall

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Nathan W. Randall to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7067)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992, asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency.

You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for "previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations," in compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles. Because "its running gear is not new", you believe that we would consider your vehicle "as 'used' even though its body and chassis are previously unused." You inform us that "these vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code."

In support you cite a 1980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that "the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused." That 1980 interpretation addressed a situation in which the vehicle was to be constructed from all new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission.

You are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, and that you will be viewed as a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles. As you also correctly understand, you will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product. However, you should also be aware that our views relate only to the specific facts as you have related them. On April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, another replica vehicle manufacturer, that its products would be considered "new" vehicles for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only other used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components. Because the engine and other fuel system components were new, we assume that the Memory vehicle did not qualify as a "rebuilt" vehicle under EPA regulations.

ID: nht92-6.46

DATE: May 20, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206); Also attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very

limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121, is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with ANY single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure.

ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.47

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: B.J. Forney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from B.J. Forney to Diane K. Steed (OCC 7235)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, asking whether a vehicle equipped with a product you have invented could be operated legally on the public roads. Although your letter did not provide details of this invention, it appears it would supply wind energy to the engine in an effort to reduce the amount of gasoline burned to power the engine. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. While NHTSA has not issued any standards that apply directly to devices like your product, our safety standards do establish minimum performance requirements for a number of vehicle systems, including the braking system, the accelerator control system, and fuel system integrity. Accordingly, while you would not have to certify that your product complies with any safety standards, any person installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards with your product installed. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles for compliance with the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale of a vehicle, a person installing your product on the vehicle would no longer be required to certify that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards. Instead, a different provision of Federal law would be relevant. This provision is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which specifies that, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory provision would be violated by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business if its installation of your product on a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with one of our safety standards.

Finally, NHTSA has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you, as the manufacturer of the product or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify owners of your product and to remedy any such defect without charge to the owner, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).

As you see, the laws and regulations of this agency do not directly relate to the use of any product. The individual States have authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment within their borders. For further information on the laws of the States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

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.

ID: nht92-6.48

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Volmerange

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/92 from Anne Volmerange to Mr. Harper (OCC 7237)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two-point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part,

any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

I hope you find this in 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.

ID: nht92-6.49

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Walter T. Jakobowski -- President, Signal Dynamics Corporation

TO: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Walter T. Jakobowski (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last October I met with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your staff, and several other staff members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce my company's collision avoidance system to your Agency, and to discuss the proper course of action to legally use our safety device for automotive and motorcycle safety.

By way of background, Signal Dynamics has developed and patented a Safety System designed to help prevent rear end collisions. We have demonstrated this Safety System to many of the automotive, insurance, safety institutes, congressional representatives, police and local agencies. Without exception this safety item has been well received, and they are sincerely interested in seeing further development of this system.

Our corporation research shows that this Safety System can help prevent rear-end accidents. However, we have solicited independent research firms that will conduct unbias effectiveness tests to determine the value of this Safety System. It is our intention at the conclusion of these tests to present the findings to N.H.T.S.A. for consideration an to petition for a change to the Federal Code, based on the submitted Data.

In the October meeting, Mr. Vinson's position was that we could conduct testing with fleet and privately owned vehicles, because "fleet owners" are considered as individuals and therefore have the right to modify their vehicle as desired after manufacturing. Accordingly, this then does provide relief from the Federal law, so that we may proceed with the testing.

At this time we have independent research firms that are ready to proceed with testing of our Safety System. However their legal council has requested that we obtain a written legal position from your agency, with the opinion as stated by Mr. Taylor, prior to commencement of testing.

Therefore Mr. Fish, on behalf of Signal Dynamics Corporation, I am requesting N.H.T.S.A. legal position/opinion on the after market installation of safety device on privately owned, and fleet operated vehicles, so that we may begin the immediate testing of this Safety System.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your early response.

ID: nht92-6.5

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7241)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal 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.

ID: nht92-6.50

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: William E. Lawler -- Manager, Specifications, Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/23/92 from Paul J. Rice to William E. Lawler (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Thank you for taking the time this afternoon to discuss some of the questions surrounding the inclusion of seat belt attachment hardware in the test requirements of FMVSS 210, "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages". At your suggestion, we are submitting some questions to you for clarification so we can give appropriate guidance to our customers, the heavy truck OEM's as to how the FMVSS 210 test is to be performed and interpreted.

1. RETRACTOR FRAMES

a. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool?

b. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool?

See Figure 1 (attached).

c. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209.

2. BUCKLE ATTACHMENT

a. A commonly used design is the "cable buckle". The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. See Figure 2 (attached).

Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/ vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210; separation of the cable from the ferrule would constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210.

b. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly.

We appreciate your help in clarifying the interpretation of the standard with regard to these questions. As we discussed, we would appreciate receiving your answer by fax to save time.

Thank you for your help.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-6.6

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Mary C. Andrews

TO: Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mary C. Andrews (A39; Std. 125)

TEXT:

We are in the process of developing a new warning device for motorists to carry in their cars.

It will be a 24 inch high inflatable plastic cone with reflector strips on the sides. It will be weighted down with sand in the enclosed bottom.

Our question to you is would this meet with any and all restrictions the Department of Transportation has for warning devices.

If you would like to see a drawing of the item, we can supply you with one.

Looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-6.7

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Neil Friedkin -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/16/92 from Neil Friedkin to Marvin Shaw (OCC 7200)

TEXT:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency requesting that the agency provide "the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars." In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity.

As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208).

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.

ID: nht92-6.8

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Peter K. Brown to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7288)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "(except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8) the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.