ID: nht95-6.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: Karen Coffey -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREN COFFEY (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

At the suggestion of Mr. Ed Glancy in your office. I am writing to request guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on a particular situation which has arisen in Texas. According to Mr. Glancy, since this type of question has not been addressed by NHTSA, a written request for an opinion is necessary.

Specifically, a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.

The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor on the automatic seat belt in lieu of repairing the motor so that the vehicle's battery will not run down. The repair of the seat belt motor is estimated to cost approximately $ 500 and the repair is not covered by the manufacturer's warranty, as it is a 1990 model vehicle with over 64,000 miles on the odometer. The seat belt may still be connected manually if and when the automatic seat belt motor is disconnected.

As you are aware, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states:

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

It is my understanding that if an air bag is deployed on a motor vehicle, NHTSA does not require the motor vehicle repairman to replace the air bag because of the above "render inoperative" provision.

In this situation, the automatic seat belt is not functioning as it was originally manufactured nor in accordance with the safety standards; thus, to disconnect the motor cannot, arguably, render inoperative what is already malfunctioning.

If the dealership disconnects the motor on the automatic seat belt, according to NHTSA, will the dealership be in violation of the "render inoperative" provision, cited above, or of any other federal standard or regulation?

As you can well understand, this situation is one in which I would appreciate your opinion as soon as possible as the consumer is anxious and in need of his/her motor vehicle.

If you need additional information or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 512-476-2686.

ID: nht95-6.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: SABURO INUI -- VICE PRESIDENT, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS 114 Theft Prevention, Final Rule Vehicle Rollaway Test Procedure [Docket No. 1-21; Notice 13]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SABURO INUI (A43; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack;

Toyota would like to request an official interpretation concerning the automatic transmission park position test procedure outlined in the in the FMVSS 114 final rule, as given in the June 7, 1995 Federal Register.

Subsequent to publishing the final rule, NHTSA issued an interpretation to General Motors describing the test procedure as a "static" test, i.e. dynamic body motions were not to be included in the overall measurement of vehicle motion. It is also our understanding that the measurement is to be taken beginning at the moment before the service brake is released. Sections S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both describe the test procedure as follows; (step numbers are added for clarity)

NHTSA procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 5. Apply the service brake Step 6. Release the parking brake Step 7. Release the service brake Step 8. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm.

As written, step 2 of this procedure requires application of the service brake and step 5 requires the same. But there is no action to release the service brake. We believe the intention of the procedure either requires a release of the service brake between steps 2 and 5, or step 5 should be eliminated (meaning the service brake is only released to begin the measurement).

Therefore, we are proposing the following revised procedure;

Toyota's Proposed Procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Release the service brake Step 5. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 6. Apply the service brake Step 7. Release the parking brake Step 8. Release the service brake Step 9. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm

Obviously, if the vehicle is not equipped with a parking brake, Steps 4, 6, and 7 of Toyota's procedure (or Steps 5 and 6 of NHTSA's procedure) would be eliminated.

Therefore, we request an interpretation of whether Toyota's proposed procedure fulfills the intention of NHTSA's test requirement.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Tinto of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

ID: nht95-6.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht95-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/8/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN COUCH TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11122)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq. -- Attorney for Liphardt & Associates

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LAWRENCE A. BEYER (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 556)

TEXT: This petition for inconsequential defect or noncompliance is submitted under 49 CFR Part 558, on behalf of:

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Drive Ronkonkoma, NY

a New York State corporation.

[Illegible Lines]

The non-compliance relates to

49 CFR Part 592.5(f) Notification of change of facility information:

49 CFR Part 592.8(e) Hold period for inspection

49 CFR Part 592.6(f) Poor compliance photography

49 CFR Part 592.6(d) Label may not have correctly identified RI

BACKGROUND:

Liphardt & Associates has been a DOT Registered Importer since 1990, concentrating in the importation of noncomplying vehicles from Europe. However in 1994, due to sudden economic conditions, importation of vehicles from the Canadian market to the US market became viable, and there was significant need for Registered Importers to assist in vehicle importation and certification. The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) was also deluged with Canadian vehicle importation situations. Liphardt was approached by a Customs House Broker in upstate New York, and was requested to set up an additional facility for the processing (modification, documentation and holding) of [Illegible Line] this facility. It turns out that Liphardt's control over these vehicles was lost, that the processing was handled by persons other than Liphardt authorized personnel and the inconsequential defect or noncompliance occurred. Liphardt notified OVSC of this situation in February, 1995 and conducted its own investigation. In March, 1995, Liphardt voluntarily suspended all Canadian importations, and met informally with NHTSA staff.

SAFETY COMPLIANCE

NHTSA has reviewed compliance packages submitted on these vehicles, and the vast majority have been deemed sufficient for release of compliance bond.

Canadian vehicles, for the most part, differ from US FMVSS only in the following areas:

1. Odometer may not be labeled KM;

2. Passive restraint systems for passenger cars;

Certification Labels must also be affixed to the vehicles in accordance with 49 [Illegible Word]

Many odometers are labeled KM by the original manufacturer. In any event, the odometer/speedometer is routinely changed to a miles based instrument, since the marketability of kilometer based vehicles is severely impaired. All passenger [Illegible Word] Certification labels may have misnamed the Registered Importer. While this in unfortunate, the purpose of naming the RI on the certification label is to ensure that the responsible RI is known for subsequent defect/recalls. OVSC maintains a very accurate computer system in which the VIN and the responsible RI are listed. Therefore, if a vehicle with the wrong name listed on the RI section of the certification label was involved in a situation where the actual RI needed to be involved, NHTSA could easily provide the correct RI name.

Clearly these defects and non-compliance are not significant and are inconsequential to vehicle safety. Liphardt has tried to work within the regulatory framework to advise OVSC of the situations and seeks this petition and exemption process to finalize this matter.

Liphardt has corrected the cause of the noncompliance and will continue to abide by the duties of a registered importer as defined in 49 CFR 592.

Thank you.

ID: nht95-6.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: Joseph J. Smith -- Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, Technical Services & Maintenance Support, Department of Buses, New York Transit Authority

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH J. SMITH (A43; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am requesting interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 302; Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR Ch. V, 10-1-94 Edition, para. 571.302).

The Department of Buses, MTA New York City Transit, has been notified by a supplier of air conditioning (A/C) return air filters that their filters do not meet Standard No. 302.

The A/C filters that the DOB utilizes on RTS 04 and 06 model buses are located on the top of A/C evaporator coil. Although the A/C filters are not mentioned in para. S4.1 of the Standard No. 302, they may, in our opinion, be affected by requirements of para. S4.2, being separated from the bus interior only by a louvered panel. This area (which the filters occupy) cannot be clearly defined whether it falls into the category of occupant compartment air space.

The copies of some selected pages from the bus service and parts manuals are attached for your reference.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify whether the A/C return air filters must conform to the Standard No. 302. If you need any additional information, please contact Sol. Zhodzishsky of my staff at tel. 718 927-7634 (fax 718 927-8079)

I would like also to thank Mr. Marvin Shaw for his expedient response to our verbal inquiries.

(MANUALS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Zawlocki

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/25/95 LETTER FROM KENNETH ZAWLOCKI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC-10949)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Zawlocki:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below.

You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact, Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of these tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the components you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important than others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements.

You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials that enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard.

While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requirements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so.

Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats.

The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters.

I note that under 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standard No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations would not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218.

Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modifications can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications . . ." I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets.

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

ID: nht95-6.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994.

At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected.

Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal output could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle.

The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt to find out if this was an acceptable practice.

A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to affix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do).

It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident.

I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperative the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For that same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor vehicle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122.

Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems.

Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system.

I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Drawing and photo omitted.

ID: nht95-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern,

I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato contacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.

The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and poor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert drivers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised.

Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support.

Enclosure

IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III

CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM

Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(Text omitted)

ID: nht95-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven B. Fisher, Esq. -- Kostow & Daar, P. C.

TITLE: Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM STEVEN B. FISHER TO PHILLIP R. RECHT (OCC 11096)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked several questions relating to use of the word "practicable" in the lamp location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by 'practicable' as used in SS5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.4." Your second question is whose responsibility it is to make the determination of practicability. Your final question is whether there is any way for a manufacturer of "a single rear identification light" to know where a trailer manufacturer will install the product on any given trailer.

We don't see the word "practicable" in S5.3.1.1. However, S5.3.1.4 does provide that rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they "be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" when the rear identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle. Table II specifies location of lighting equipment on the vehicle, and it is therefore the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, in certifying that its vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, to determine what is practicable. As you indicate, a trailer manufacturer may make such a determination "in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved." NHTSA will not contest this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. In short, "practicable" as meant by S5.3.1.4 or any other place where the word occurs, is not a term defined by Standard No. 108, and derives its meaning from specific factual contexts. We note that the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1967) defines "practicable" as "capable of being done, effected, or put into practice with the available means" (p. 1127).

There is no responsibility under Standard No. 108 for the manufacturer of identification lamps to know where its products will be installed on the motor vehicle. Its responsibility under Standard No. 108 is to ensure that any identification lamp that it manufactures for replacement purposes is designed to conform to Standard No. 108's performance specifications and so certified at the time the lamp is shipped from the factory.

If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).