ID: nht95-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have i mpact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church gro ups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht95-3.95

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 ques tion 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 dow n, 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 appli cable 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: nht95-3.96

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 un derstanding 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 b etween 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: nht95-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1995

FROM: Mark Heminway -- Director of Fleet Operations, The Hertz Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/29/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Mark Heminway (A44; Part 580)

TEXT: On August 17, 1995 we met with Mr. Richard Morse of the Odometer Fraud Staff to outline a laser printing process we have developed for printing signatures on odometer disclosure statements.

To summarize the meeting, we described to Mr. Morse a process Hertz developed where it scans both the written and printed signature. Then, applying the signature via a laser printer, the documents are printed and forwarded to the states. Mr. Morse insp ected the sample documents and was satisfied they met the standards for verification of signature as well as the spirit and intent of CFR 49 Section 580, particularly as outlined in Appendix A regarding secure printing processes. Additionally, each PC i s secured with password protection so only the true owner of the signature may issue that signature.

We seek from you a positive interpretation that the laser printing of the actual signature and printed name meets the requirements of CFR 49 section 580. A written response from you would clarify for both the states and ourselves your position and save significant time and expense.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Samples omitted.

ID: nht95-3.98

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 Fe deral 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 ques tion 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 install ed 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: nht95-3.99

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 ma rket 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 ap proached 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 ve hicles 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 accur ate 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 ea sily 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: nht95-4.1

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 thes e 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 compon ents 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 th an 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 t hat 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 requ irements 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 Standa rd 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 wou ld 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 modification s 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: nht95-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patrick M. Raher, Esq. -- Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Columbia Square

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/19/95 LETTER FROM PATRICK M. RAHER TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10904)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raher:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the seat position specifications of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 214, Side Impact Protection. These specifications, which are part of the test conditions for the standards' d ynamic crash tests, indicate how a vehicle's seats are positioned in those tests. You asked how the specifications apply in the case of power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat hei ght. As discussed below, the seats would be positioned midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions (with the forwardmost and rearmost positions being determined irrespective of seat height), and at the lowest possible height at that midway pos ition. This appears to correspond to Option 1 in your letter.

In your letter, you described a power seat design whose seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to the mechanism utilized in the power seat operation. In particular, the seat can move further forward in its highest position t han in its lowest position, and further rearward in its lowest position than in its highest position. You also indicated that a lowering of the seat from a higher position has the effect of moving the seat backward.

The seat position specifications of Standards No. 208 (S8.1.2) and No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows:

Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardm ost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used.

This provision sets forth two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions. The terms "forwardmost" and "rearmost" are not qualified by height, so the absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions would be used, irrespective of seat height at those positions.

The second condition, for the vertical position of a seat which is separately adjustable in a vertical direction, is for the seat to be in the lowest position. We interpret this to refer to the lowest vertical position that can be attained at the longit udinal position described above. Therefore, in positioning a seat for a crash test, we would not change the longitudinal position of the seat merely because the mechanism was designed so that lowering the seat from a higher position had the effect of mo ving the seat backward. Instead, we would find the lowest vertical position that could be attained at the specified longitudinal position.

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

ID: nht95-4.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

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

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations 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 where such damag e occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device w ould not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equip ment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those test s free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Vans

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM YVONNE ANDERSON TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 11047)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of July 13, 1995, concerning a van which your company is modifying. The van is owned by a local school system. The school system has asked your company to raise the roof, extend the side door, install wheelchair tiedowns, a nd install a wheelchair lift. The vehicle was certified as a "bus," but your modification would reduce the seating capacity so that the vehicle would become a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). You asked whether this vehicle must be certified foll owing the modifications. The answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A vehicle must be certified as compl ying with all applicable safety standards before it can be sold or imported.

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on modifications made 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 veh icle 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 they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of sa fety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

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