ID: nht95-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. White -- Manager of Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM DAVID A. WHITE TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of March 14, 1995, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on certain vehicles manufactured by Grumman Olson. Your lette r describes those vehicles as van bodies mounted on either cutaway chassis or chassis cabs that are sold as part of Grumman Olson's Freight Star line. Your letter further states that as chassis manufacturers have made changes to the doors and interiors of their vehicles, Grumman Olson has found it "increasingly difficult, if not impossible" to locate its certification label, which measures three and one half by six inches, in any of the locations specified in NHTSA certification regulations at 49 CFR 5 67.4.

Paragraph (c) of that section prescribes specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provides that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for NHTSA's approval. The location that you have recommended is on the forward half of the left side of the cargo box, which is the same location as the one specified in 49 CFR 567.4(d) for the placement of certification labels on trailers. In a photograph that you subsequently faxed to us, the proposed location was more precisely identified as the left front corner of the cargo box, immediately behind the cab.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in Grumman Olson's Freight Star line would meet this objecti ve. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

To ensure that vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States may be distinguished from those manufactured for sale in Canada, NHTSA strongly suggests that the letters "U.S." or "U.S.A." be inserted before the word "Federal" in the safety standard c ompliance statement that must be included in the certification label under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(5).

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter requests an interpretation of a portion of SAE J586 (Feb. 84) installation requirements for rear stop lamps (section 5.4.1), as incorporated by reference in FMVSS 108, Table III.

More specifically, this request concerns the visibility requirements for rear stop lamps. The referenced SAE section states that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square cent imeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) "Outer lens surface", however, is not defined either in the SAE materials or in FMVSS 108.

We believe that "outer lens surface" when used in the above section of J586 means "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387.

Please confirm the agency's definition of "outer lens surface" as used in the visibility requirement in SAE J586 (Feb. 84).

Given testing and production deadlines, we kindly request as prompt an answer as possible.

Thank you for your kind attention.

ID: nht95-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marshall S. Reagle -- Sate-Lite Mfg. Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/1/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MARSHALL S. REAGLE TO PAT BOYD (OCC 10784)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reagle:

This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel.

You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you tha t, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments.

This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4-inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c).

Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entran ce angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 19 77, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing.

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

ID: nht95-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harry C. Gough -- P. E., State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/28/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 11/18/94 LETTER FROM HARRY C. GOUGH TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no.

You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window reten tion and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself.

Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . .

This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421:

Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).

As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261.

Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel, Director -- Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Tillie K. Fowler -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: Your Reference: 95-0167-J

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM TILLIE K. FOWLER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ; ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Fowler:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information.

In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes".

We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph).

The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susc eptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities.

As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of re quirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer.

Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily grant ed as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standard s have not been granted.

Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for clarification of interpretation of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated April 3, 1995 regarding FMVSS 210 location requirements, and more specifically S 4.3. This section states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal cr ash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

Although Mr. Recht's April 3 letter discusses the meaning of this provision, kindly confirm for our records that seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210:

A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint system meets the frontal and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested unde r FMVSS 208.

Your immediate attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1995

FROM: Valter Sforca

TO: Philipe Recht -- Chief Counselor, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO VALTER SFORCA (A43; PART 591)

TEXT: I have speak with Mr. Taylor Vincent about get a letter in writing from you, explaining if there is any regulation to bring from a foreign Country, a assembled unit called, Air Equalizer for Tire Pressure, wich comply with Safety Standarts. In a emergen cy the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop.

Since now, I'wating for your response, please mail or fax to me a "Letter of Approval for Safety Standard", I'apreciatte at this matter thank you.

ID: nht95-2.43

ID: nht95-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10789)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Echt:

We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system.

Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked:

"1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissib le under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver."

Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original e quipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use.

Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementa ry lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within t he meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system.

Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Hindson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/15/94 LETTER FROM TOM HINDSON TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10619)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in secti ons 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 o f the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehi cles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximate ly 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a general fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please fee l free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.