ID: nht95-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur N. Arschin

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN TO WILART BANKS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arschin:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether the manufacturer identification numbers assigned to the Vee Rubber Company, Ltd. and the Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd. remain valid. The short answer is yes, if the plants remain in pro duction.

49 CFR 574.5 requires each new or newly retreaded tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The TIN is intended to assist NHTSA to identify the production source of a tire in the event of a defect or noncompliance. The TIN must include a manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR 574.6. NHTSA issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces or retreads tires, and a plant can only have one MIM.

Once NHTSA issues a MIM, the mark remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. In the event the plant ceases production, the mark assigned to that plant may not be further assigned or otherwise used by the manufactur er or anyone else. If the plant ceases production, NHTSA should be promptly notified so that the mark can be cancelled.

With regard to your client rubber companies, the MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber Company, Ltd., YRU for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2, remain in effect if those plants are still in production. The MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd ., 4A for Plant No. 1 and 5A for Plant No. 2 remain in effect if those plants are still in production.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 11160)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Beyer:

This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592.

The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you a ttributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556.

The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592.

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

ID: nht95-4.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 20, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Glenn J. Vick, -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/15/95 LETTER FROM GLENN J. VICK TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vick:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 221, School bus body joint strength. You explain that Ford is planning to introduce a new E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab for use by final-stage manufa cturers in producing large school buses. You ask how Standard No. 221 applies to the chassis.

I am pleased to clarify our regulations for you. As explained below, Ford has responsibilities as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, but these do not include certifying that a school bus completed on your chassis will meet Standard No. 221.

As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Ford's responsibilities are described in section 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Ford must furnish certain information with the incomplete vehicle at or before the vehicle's de livery to the intermediate or final-stage manufacturer. (We will refer to the document(s) containing this information as "the incomplete vehicle document.") This information includes the vehicle type(s) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriatel y be manufactured, and a listing, by number, of each FMVSS that applies to any of the listed vehicle types. Further, Ford must follow this listing with one of the following three types of statements, as applicable, for each standard:

1. A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which Ford specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard; or,

3. A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that Ford makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In accordance with these requirements, your incomplete vehicle document must indicate that the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured into a school bus. It must also list, by number, each FMVSS that applies to school buses, including Stand ard No. 221. n1 n1 Please note that NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567, provides an incomplete vehicle manufacturer the option of assuming legal responsibility for certifying the compliance of the vehicle as finally manufactured. See 49 CFR section 56 7.5(e).

As a practical matter, the third statement is the one likely to be used by a chassis manufacturer, with regard to Standard No. 221. The standard requires school bus body panel joints to be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is j oined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. It is likely that the conformity with the standard would not be substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle.

Nevertheless, we would encourage Ford to consult with the finalstage manufacturer on its work completing the school bus. A completed vehicle's conformity to the FMVSSs can be substantially affected by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the ma nner of completion by the final-stage manufacturer. Moreover, the compliance of the school bus with certain FMVSSs, such as the braking standard (FMVSS No. 105) and the fuel tank integrity standard (FMVSS No. 301), is highly dependent on the design of th e incomplete vehicle. Some final-stage manufacturers may need information from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in addition to the incomplete vehicle document, to assist them in properly completing the vehicle.

I hope this responds to your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds, Esq., -- Cosco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS TO DEIRDRE FUJITA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your letter asking us to confirm that we consider your submission, dated August 3, 1995, as a timely petition for reconsideration of a final rule published July 6, 1995 (Docket No. 74-09, Notice 42). You enclosed a copy of a Federal Exp ress document to show that your submission was received by NHTSA within the time period provided for such petitions under 49 CFR @ 553.35.

The Federal Express document, which shows the signature of an agency employee, supports a finding that your submission was timely filed. NHTSA is processing your submission as a petition for reconsideration of the subject rule.

If you have any further questions about your petition, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/18/95 LETTER FROM ORLANDO FERREIRA TO J. MEDLIN (OCC 11221)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ferreira:

This responds to your FAX message to Mr. Jere Medlin of this agency, asking whether your "master switch" on a transit bus must be illuminated pursuant to Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. Your master switch has four controls, "engine stop," "run," "lights," and "park." In a telephone conversation with Mr. Medlin, you explained that your "run" control functions as an "engine start" control, and your "park" control functions as a "clearance lamps systems" control.

As explained below, Standard No. 101 specifies illumination for the "engine stop" and "park" controls, but not for the "run" and "light" controls. In addition, there are identification requirements for those controls.

Your drawing of the master switch shows that the switch resembles a tuning knob on a radio. Like a knob, the switch can be turned to each of the above four positions, one position at a time. Because turning the master switch knob to each position activ ates the described function, we would consider each position to be a separate control.

You write that the master switch will be placed on a "driver's side control panel," a location that subjects controls to Standard No. 101's illumination requirements. S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 (referencing Tables 1 and 1(a) Identification and Illuminat ion of Controls), specifies that if:

* a control is provided, * is listed in column 1 of either Table 1 or 1(a), * and is accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4, Illumination, of the table,

the "identification . . . of any control" shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated.

"Engine stop" control The identification of the "engine stop" control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. This is because in Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine stop" control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresp onding space in column 4 of each table.

"Park" control Two issues are raised by your "park" control. The first relates to Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard, the control that regulates the parking lights is the "clearance lamps system" control, rather than the "par k" control. Since your control regulates the parking lights, it must be identified as "Marker Lamps", "MK Lps" or (as you propose) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1. Labeling the control as "park" could confuse some persons into thinking "park" is a transmission park position.

The second issue is the illumination requirement. The identification of the control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. As noted above, your park control has to be identified as "Marker Lamps" or "MK Lps". In Ta ble 1, the control is specified in column 1, and accompanied by "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4. Thus, the control must be illuminated.

"Run" control The same two issues discussed in our answer directly above, pertain to this control. First is Standard No. 101's requirements for identifying controls. Under the standard the control that will start the engine must be identified as "engine start" (rathe r than "run") as described in both Tables 1 and 1(a), when it is separate from the key locking system (as is yours).

The control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "engine start" control (which is the correct identification of the control) is specified in column 1, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

"Lights" control The same two issues discussed above are relevant here. The illustration you enclosed with your letter shows that you use both the word "Lights" and an identifying symbol to identify your Lights control. We are not sure that you are correctly using the symbol. The symbol you use is listed in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 as that for the master lighting switch. A master lighting switch regulates all exterior vehicle lights. If your "lights" control only regulates headlamps and taillamps, and not all ex terior vehicle lights, please designate the headlamps and taillamps as specified in column 3 of Table 1.

The "lights" control need not be illuminated. In both Tables 1 and 1(a), the "lights" control is specified in column 2, without a corresponding "yes" for illumination in column 4 of either table.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hugh J. Bode, Esq. -- Reminger & Reminger

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM HUGH J. BODE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bode:

This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. @@ 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle.

You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point duri ng the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows:

As we understand it, former @ 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformi ty with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicl e. Safety Act former @ 108 (b) (1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112 (b) (1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a) (2) (A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in @ 30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under @@ 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge.

This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreason ably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities.

State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124.

With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124.

Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. @ 30112). There may be State requirements that apply.

Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion develo ped inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the exi stence of a safety-related defect.

Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards.

Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between - 4 0 degrees F. and + 125 degrees F. . ." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect.

If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM LARRY W. STRAWHORN AND EARL EISNHART TO JOHN G. WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock malfunction indicator requirements set forth at S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision explains the situations in which the trailer lamp malfunction indic ator must remain activated. Section S5.2.3.3 reads as follows:

S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. Each trailer (including a trailer converter dolly) manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 and before March 1, 2006 shall be equipped with a lamp indicating a malfunction of a trailer's antilock brake system. Such a lamp shall remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is supplied to the antilock brake system. The display shall be visible within the driver's forward field of view through the rearview mirror(s), and shall be visible once the malfunction is present and power is provided to the system. (Emphasis added.).

In particular, you request that the agency confirm your belief that the lamp activation pattern for trailers may be such that the bulb be ON when the antilock system is working properly and OFF when a malfunction exists, the antilock system is not gettin g electrical power, or the lamp bulb is burnt out. You contended that such an activation pattern provides a fail safe pattern i.e., it will signal an inoperative antilock system even when the system is not receiving electrical power or the lamp bulb is b urnt out.

NHTSA disagrees with your suggested reading of the malfunction indicator requirements. Such a reading would be inconsistent with S5.2.3.3's language stating that the lamp must "remain activated as long as the malfunction exists whenever the power is sup plied to the antilock brake system." As with other malfunction indicators, the agency intends the malfunction indicator to activate when a malfunction exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. To require otherwise would be inconsi stent with our requirements for other indicators and thus would create confusion. Please note that NHTSA provided a lengthy discussion about the issue of a malfunction indicator's activation protocol in the March 10, 1995 final rule. (60 FR 13216, 1324 6) The agency stated that in response to an ABS malfunction, a trailer or tractor indicator must activate and provide a continuous yellow signal. The agency explained that such a common indicator pattern standardizes the activation format, thus reducing ambiguity and confusion and expediting Federal and State inspections.

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

ID: nht95-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand c ontrols. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situati ons, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since y our situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public nee d. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

ID: nht95-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esquire -- Arent Fox

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

This responds to your letter of August 30, 1995, concerning a June 6, 1995 letter from this office to C. Rufus Pennington, III. You asked us to confirm that the agency did not take a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche.

You are correct. As the letter clearly states, "NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht95-4.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1995

FROM: Jane Thornton Mastrucci -- Thornton, Mastrucci and Sinclair

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/26/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin (signed by John Womack) to Jane Thornton Mastrucci (A43; Part 571.3; VSA 102)

TEXT: We represent the Dade County School Board with respect to its vehicular litigation.

The Florida Legislature has just passed a new law, F.S. 234.02 (1)(a) which allows a School Board to use, in addition to passenger cars not exceeding eight students, any other motor vehicle designed to transport ten on fewer persons which meets all fe deral motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars. Similarly, the Department of Education Rule 6A-3.017 (10)(c) allows the transportation of students, when necessary or practical, in multipurpose vehicles, providing the MPV meets all of the applica ble passenger car federal motor vehicle safety standards, except the standard pertaining to window tinting. Copies of both of these statutes are attached.

Would you please advise which passenger vehicles which multipurpose vehicles meet all federal motor safety standards.

Thanking you for your courtesy and cooperation in advance, I remain,

Florida statutes are omitted.