ID: nht95-7.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui, -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Service of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM SABURO INUI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to Toyota's August 22, 1995, letter regarding the test procedures in this agency's June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 (60 FR 30006). You were concerned that the test procedure seems to say that the service brake should be applied at two different steps during the test procedure, without specifying when the service brake should be released in between those two steps. You suggested a revised procedure that specifies a step for releasing the service brake, and asked if that procedure conforms with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) test requirement.

After reviewing the issues raised by your letter, we have concluded that a technical amendment should be issued to clarify the test procedure. We expect to issue such an amendment shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 13, 1995

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

TO: Borje Kukka

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/95 letter from Gerald R. Stewart to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 11281)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kukka:

This response to your request for an interpretation whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The groves apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves.

I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. The letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle.

Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to "approve" or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it an any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it "can improve a driver's ability to drive safely,") that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion.

State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may have for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. I am, under separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion.

ID: nht95-7.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 14, 1995

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

TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez

TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement:

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. 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 applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position.

A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions.

Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts.

The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht95-7.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical, Federal Mogul Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN C. GOLDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Golden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a "Lightman," for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product.

You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, "Does the mounting of one of these devices . . . take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?"

As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices.

There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle.

As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number:

400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590.

Telephone: (202) 366-1790

We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 16, 1995

FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

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

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581)

TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581.

In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated:

"Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ."

S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, braking systems.

S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge.

S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME.

S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints.

Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes.

In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed.

Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons:

the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system.

the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7).

the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9).

If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience.

ID: nht95-7.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Brester -- Director of Product Engineering, Velvac Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT R. BRESTER TO STEVE WOOD (OCC 11116)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter:

Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking.

The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . )'

You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids.

You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems.

If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an "alterer" under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. n1

n1 The make inoperative provision does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSSs. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake house, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1995

FROM: Jim Young -- Wheeled Coach

TO: John Womack

TITLE: FMVSS Compliance

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/17/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Jim Young (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Wheeled Coach is an Ambulance manufacturer and is in need of a response to the following issues regarding customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting.

"Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights." The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie.; maximum luminous intensity, color, etc...)

Brake Enhancer" Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn.

"Back-up alert strobes" Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear.

Taillight Flashers" Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work of the rear doors on the ambulance are open.

ID: nht95-7.27

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 production.

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 manufacturer 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: nht95-7.28

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 attributed 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: nht95-7.29

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 manufacturers 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 delivery 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 appropriately 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 Standard 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 567.5(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 joined 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 manner 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 the 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.