ID: nht92-9.63

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: Scott D. Boone -- Van Conversions, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Scott D. Boone (A40; Std. 208; Part 568)

TEXT:

We at Van Conversions convert from time to time Ford E-150's for day care centers. We usually do a 21 passenger capability and would like to have in writing all the State laws we need to comply with, from bolts used and materials preferred.

We won't touch anything until we hear from you. Thank you very much.

Usually Ford E-150's 21 passenger Step well Isle runner Tell me about seat belts 3 pt. Tell me about bolts used and grades.

ID: nht92-9.7

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cliff Chuang -- President, Prospects Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/22/92 from Cliff Chuang to Dorothy Nakama (OCC 6893; Std. 118))

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. One such petition is from your company. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.8

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeff Ruff -- The Braun Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/30/91 from Jeff Ruff to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6631)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 30, 1991, regarding Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and vehicles designed to be operated by persons with disabilities. Your letter indicates that you must remove "the support brace between the 'B' pillars and forward" when you alter a vehicle for a person who must transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. You also indicate that the original manufacturer of the vehicle will not allow you to pass through certification for Standard No. 208 if these alterations are made.

The safety requirements for new light trucks and vans were upgraded as of September 1, 1991. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters like your company and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, this agency granted that petition. You should understand that the granting of a petition for rulemaking signifies that the agency believes a further review of the issues raised in the petition appears to have merit, but it is not a determination that the light truck and van crash test requirement should be amended. Any determination to amend the crash test requirement would be made in the course of a rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. By addressing the issue comprehensively, in response to this petition for rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to each of the individual requests, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, we are aware that individuals seeking to purchase new vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities need more immediate relief than rulemaking can offer. To afford more immediate relief, this agency announced in a January 21, 1992 letter to Representative Porter Goss that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this

rulemaking is pending. This should allow your company to continue to produce such modified vehicles while this rulemaking is pending.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.9

DATE: February 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Martin -- Program Manager, Bureau of Highway Safety, Augusta, Maine

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/91 from Michael A. Martin to Mary Versailles (OCC 6747); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This is in regard to your letter of December 9, 1991, regarding school buses. Your three questions are addressed below.

1. (W) hat is the general rule to which states need to comply with regarding Federal school bus safety standards? What bus safety modifications would not be restricted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)?

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that are different from the applicable FMVSS except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law imposing higher requirement would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. The agency has previously interpreted the phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" to include public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school. See, for example, February 20, 1987 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin (copy enclosed).

2. Would Federal safety standards restrict a state

from requiring safety belts on school buses?

A state requirement that all school buses be equipped with safety belts regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) and would not be identical to that standard for large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds). FMVSS No. 222 requires school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interiors are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. FMVSS No. 222 requires the additional protection of safety belts at each passenger position in small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) because these buses experience greater force levels in a crash.

A state requirement for safety belts on school buses would be identical to the level of performance required for small school buses, but would specify a different level of performance for large school buses. However, because the state requirement specifies a higher level of performance for large school buses than that required by FMVSS No. 222, Maine may require the installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions, as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not compromised.

3. Could a school bus fleet modify the rear lighting configuration of their buses (8 light system) to reduce the potential for other vehicles rear-ending buses during poor visibility conditions, e.g., fog? ... The proposed change is to replace the white 8 inch back-up lights with 8 inch red sealed beam warning lights similar to the two at the upper level of the rear end of the bus. These would flash in an alternating criss-cross fashion when the bus is stopped loading or discharging students. The small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus would each be replaced with white, universal backup lights angled to also direct their beams at 45 degree angles out from the rear of the bus.

The answer to your question is yes if the school district or its fleet contractor performs the modification itself. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes Cthis agency to issue FMVSS applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale for purposes other than resale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs. After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 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.

This provision does not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle. I note, however, that this agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with their vehicle's safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition, it is possible that the modifications you describe could be made by one of the named commercial entities without violating the "render inoperative" provision. The modification you describe affects two requirements of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. FMVSS No. 108 requires buses, including school buses, to have at least one backup light meeting the photometric and height requirements of SAE Standard J593c, February 1968. If the small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus comply with these requirements, the vehicle would continue to conform with this requirement.

Section S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires school buses to have a system of either four red or four red and four amber signal lamps which conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964. The modification you describe would add an additional two red signal lamps to the existing eight light system. Section S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states that "(n)o additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." It is our opinion that the addition of two red signal lamps would not violate this provision.

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

ID: nht93-1.1

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: A. F. Zang, III

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to A. F. Zang, III (A41; Std. 213; FMVSS 302)

TEXT: I am planning to produce a product for children. I am concerned about meeting all governmental rules concerning products for children. The product is made out of a fabric that is plastic coated, and is an after market child's car seat cover. My main concern is the flammability restrictions that the government places upon fabrics that are used for children's goods. I am writing to your agency because my product will be used on the highways.

Where can I go to get the fabric tested? What are the test specifications? Are these questions something that are already available from the factory? I want to be able to state on the packaging that the fabric has been tested and found to be within governmental regulations. I feel that it is important for parents to feel safe about the products they are purchasing for their children.

Any information that you could send me concerning governmental regulations for children's products would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

ID: nht93-1.10

DATE: January 14, 1993

FROM: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety, Safety Education Service

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Janet Monteros -- Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-5-93 from John Womack to Bob Dittert (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d))

TEXT: It would be appreciated if your agency would make clear the authority of the CFR's concerning automotive equipment standards for new vehicles and after- market equipment.

1. Are the CFR's law and enforceable only by federal agents?

2. Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?

3. Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFR's?

4. Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?

I am of the understanding that the CFR 48, Part 571.105 requires light transmission of 70% minimum (words illegible) is this correct? If this is correct and Texas law, VCS S701(illegible) Art. XII, Sec. 184(C), allows light transmission of only 35% (words illegible) action of Federal law? (Words illegible) Sec. 108 stated that if a Federal standard for any item of automotive equipment exists that standard will take precedence over any state standard and this section also empowers the Department (Texas Department of Public Safety) to control the sale and use of automotive equipment. If the state statutes are in error can that be remedied by the Federal Government? If so, how?

It doesn't seem realistic that every state could have different standards for automotive equipment, either new manufactured vehicles or after-market!

Your answers to these questions are awaited in ernest.

ID: nht93-1.11

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Dib, Esq. -- Law Offices of Reid, Maguilis and Dib

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/93 from Tony Stump to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to the letter on your behalf from Mr. Tony stump of Backtrack Unlimited, and telephone conversations between Mr. Stump and Mr. Walter Myers of this office. Mr. Stump requested information on a tire containing the DOT tire identification number (TIN) CPFMPKD101. Specifically, the letter requested the name and address of the manufacturer, date of manufacture of the tire, and any additional information known to this agency about this tire.

49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) establishes the requirement for TINs and specifies the information to be contained therein as well as the format and sequence of such information. The purpose of the TIN is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety-related defect.

Part 574.5 provides that the TIN will be composed of four groups of symbols, letters and/or numbers. The first grouping, CP, on the TIN for the tire indicates that the manufacturer is the Continental Gummi-Werke, A.G., Continental Street 3 to 5, D-354 Korbach, Germany. NHTSA does not maintain data on the second and third groupings, which identifies tire size and significant characteristics of the tire. The fourth grouping, 101, shows the week and year of manufacture. In this case, 101 would be the tenth full week of a year that ends in a "1," such as 1981 or 1991.

NHTSA has no additional information on this tire.

I hope this answers your questions. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.12

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (A40; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Our company, Saddleman, Inc., is contemplating the introduction of an aftermarket automotive airbag. The product is manufactured by a Korean company, Line Precision Co., LTD. As you can see in the accompanying brochures, the airbag attaches to the ceiling of the vehicle and discharges downward in between the occupant and the steering wheel or dashboard. The product operates by a mechanical, rather than an electronic, sensor. The response time of the airbag is .05 seconds after sensing frontal impact. This product has been marketed in Korea since early 1992 under the brand name "Challa." Line Precision has applied for T.U.V. approval in Germany, and expects to receive this approval shortly.

Saddleman is based in Logan, Utah, with manufacturing facilities in Utah, Ohio, and S. Carolina. We sell exclusively automotive aftermarket products to such mass merchandisers as Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Sears; and to automotive retailers such as Pep Boys, Trak Auto, and Northern Automotive. We feel that the Challa Airbag, being an attachable, aftermarket product, will fill a market need by providing airbag protection in vehicles where an original equipment airbag is not available.

Saddleman would like to be advised of any federal standards that would apply to this product and of any responsibilities we would have to the NHTSA. We would greatly appreciate a response as soon as possible so that we may address any issues that we have not foreseen.

Attached to brochure (graphics and text omitted)

ID: nht93-1.13

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Olin Wright

TO: Porter Goss -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-17-93 from John Womack to Olin Wright (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT: This is to follow up our telephone conversation this weekend and the call from Sheryl about airbags in automobiles.

I would like to establish a company to install airbags in automobiles not currently equipped with these life saving safety systems. As of this date, I have been unable to find a supplier who will sell me the airbags. I have contacted many companies here and abroad without success.

The bags are made in this country by both Morton International and TRW. I am not interested in anything but the best quality that can be bought. I need complete systems, ready for installation.

I will appreciate any help which you and your staff can give me. I feel that every day there is additional unnecessary loss of life.

January 27, 1993

The Honorable Porter Goss House of Representatives Washington, DC

Dear Rep. Goss:

I hope you received my FAX on January 19, 1993 pertaining to retrofitting airbags in automobiles. Below is a quote from the February 1993 issue of MOTOR TREND magazine which has interesting figures on automobile crash costs:

"While traffic fatality rates continue falling to historic lows, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports the total dollar cost to the nation from motor vehicle crashes keeps going up. In 1990, we spent $137.5 billion -- roughly 2 percent of the country's gross national product -- for lost market and household productivity ($50.6 billion), property damage ($45.7 billion), medical costs ($13.9 billion), insurance administration ($10 billion), legal and court costs ($9 billion), and other costs ($3 billion)."

Much of the drop in fatality rates can be attributed to the increase use of seatbelts and airbags. There are many lives and much money to be saved by the continued use of airbags in automobiles, particularly the retrofitting of airbags in older automobiles. I hope you and your staff will continue to do whatever you can to see that these important safety systems are made available

to the public. The establishment of a company to install these airbags would provide jobs for hundreds of persons now unemployed.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Olin Wright

Phone: 313-489-2073

April 7, 1993

Mr. Stanley Feldman Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

RE: Name: Mr. Olin Wright Address: 6852 Sandtrap Drive Fort Myers, Fl. 33919 Claim/File #:

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find correspondence from the referenced constituent.

I would appreciate your immediate review of the concerns addressed in this correspondence and your prompt response as to what action will be taken by your office.

As Mr. Wright is anticipating a prompt response from you, my thanks in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

PLEASE RESPOND DIRECTLY TO MR. WRIGHT AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

Sincerely,

Peter Goss Member of Congress

ID: nht93-1.14

DATE: January 21, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/17/94 From John Womack To Michael Love (A42; Std. 102; Std. 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

On June 28, 1988 Porsche submitted a request for interpretation regarding FMVSS 101 and 102 as they applied to a new transmission design. NHTSA responded to that request in a letter dated April 3, 1989. Since that time, Porsche has introduced that transmission as the "Tiptronic (R)" on two models. Porsche is currently considering changes to the method of shifting of this transmission and has several questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 102 to those changes.

The current design of the shift lever console and transmission position display in the speedometer is as shown in Figure 1. Porsche is considering three options for changes.

1) As shown in Figure 2, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic (left) side of the shift gate.

2a) As shown in Figure 3, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate; the gear shift lever can be moved from D to M to select automatic or manual shifting respectively; in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2b) As shown in Figure 4, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate and eliminate the separate manual side of the shift gate. Once in the D position, the shift lever can be pulled backward to change from automatic to manual gear selection by means of a switch activated in the same manner as the switches in the manual mode of the current Tiptronic. Pulling the lever backwards a second time would change back from manual to automatic gear selection. Once in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2

In all three options, the speedometer display of transmission position would remain as shown in Figure 1. This display would be the same for all options. The shift lever position selected would be indicated by lighting an arrow ((or)) next to the appropriate symbol, as is done on the current display.

As shown in Figure 1, Porsche currently has gear selection positions 3, 2 and 1 in line with PRND positions. For options 1, 2a and 2b, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display these positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they are displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Does NHTSA concur?

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers". It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected.

Based on this understanding, we believe that the display as shown in Figure 1, if lighted during the conditions of 571.102 @ 3.1.4.3(a) and (b), fulfills the requirements of @ 3.1.4.4. Does NHTSA concur with this interpretation?

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. Does NHTSA concur?

Sincerely,