ID: nht95-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 6, 1995

FROM: Teresa Thompson -- Tony [Illegible Words]

TO: National Highway Traffic, Safety Council

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERESA THOMPSON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council,

I am writing to inquire about regulations which might apply to an automobile deceleration signal. My partner has invented a strobe light with an independent power supply, which upon heavy breaking, will activate a strobe for five seconds and on impact f or ten minutes.

The prototype for the light is approximately 4" by 3" and may be attached to a rear window with section cups or may be permanently installed with brackets. The light operates from a nine volt battery and the timers are activated by memory sensitive switc hes, [Illegible Word] with its own timing device according to the amount of torque applied in a given situation.

[Illegible Lines]

This device would be useful to all areas of the country where heavy fog occurs, heavy rain or areas which are mountainous in essence, the whole country.

We have tested the prototype as far as individually possible, but would like information on how to have this product tested and approved as well as information on the legal ramifications and liabilities for the product.

Your help in this matter, would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht95-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1995

FROM: James M. Hanson -- Chairman Engineering Committee, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TO: Phillip R. Recht, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request For Interpretation Of FMVSS-108 Paragraph S5.7

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES M. HANSON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: The Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) serves manufactures of OEM and aftermarket motor vehicle safety devices and associated equipment including retroreflective tape.

FMVSS-108 states in Table 1 that a trailer 80 inches or more in width shall have a conspicuity treatment meeting the requirements of paragraph S5.7. Paragraph S5.7 states "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 poun ds, manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, . . . . shall be equipped with either retroreflective sheeting that meets . . . ." The word "and" in this paragraph could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is required on the trailer. Some trailer manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape in the following conditions:

1. A trailer of 80 inches or more in width weighing less than 10,000 pounds GVWR.

2. A trailer of less than 80 inches in width weighing more than 10,000 pounds GVWR.

TSEI believes that to assure maximum safety for the motoring public retroreflective tape should be applied to trailers that meet the following requirements:

a). A trailer of 80 inches or more in width and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.

b). A trailer of 80 inches or more in width and a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds.

c). A trailer of less than 80 inches in width and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.

The TSEI would appreciate the NHTSA's interpretation and comments on this issue.

ID: nht95-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Malcolm Bricklin - President, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: Re: Petition for Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/20/95 LETTER FROM MALCOLM BRICKLIN TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bricklin:

We have received your letter of March 20, 1995, asking for an exemption from two provisions of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 123 on the basis that "compliance with the standards, in this instance, will constitute a greater hazard to the general publ ic and will result in more accidents caused by operator error than the alternatives that we propose."

I am sorry to inform you that we cannot consider your request in its current form. For your guidance, I enclose a copy of our temporary exemption regulation, 49 CFR Part 555. I suggest that the appropriate basis for your petition under that regulation is section 555.6(d): that you are otherwise unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is the equivalent of, or exceeds, the overall level of safety of a nonexempted vehicle.

When you have filed a petition that provides the information required by Part 555, we shall be pleased to consider this matter further. Because of the need to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a decision is rarely reached until three to four months after a petition is received.

If you have any questions on the regulation, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer them (202-366-5263; FAX: 202-366-3820).

ID: nht95-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1995

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

TO: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 LETTER FROM LEE RABIE TO NHTSA (OCC 10732); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rabie:

This responds to your letter of February 15, 1995, requesting information on any Federal regulations concerning recycling or remanufacturing vehicle air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve moto r vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards at the time of the product's first purchase for purp oses other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the product.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires that many vehicles provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect th eir occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. One type of automatic crash protection currently offered on new vehicles is air bags. A recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers are not required to certify that air bags, as items of equipment, meet any motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S9 of Standard No. 208 specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you could not sell a recycled or remanufactured air bag with these compo nents replaced unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

It is unclear from your letter if the recycled or remanufactured air bags will be reinstalled in the original vehicle or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags for other vehicles with deployed air bags or as retrofit air bags for vehicles w hich do not have air bags as original equipment. Therefore, I will discuss these scenarios separately.

Re-installation or installation in a vehicle with a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explain ed in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. Howev er, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or re pair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a recycled or remanufactured air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letter s, Federal law does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law d oes not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the cras h sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using recycled or remanufactured air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

Installation in a motor vehicle which did not originally have an air bag.

A Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Finally, as a manufacturer of replacement parts, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If y ou have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Glen Gramse -- Minnesota State Police

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Major Gramse:

It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R. C. Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being eq uipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law.

As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms.

By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certi fied to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties.

The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identica l to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of perf ormance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines "School bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Darlene Skelton -- President, National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/16/94 LETTER FROM DARLENE E. SKELTON TO BARRY FELRICE

TEXT: Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologi ze for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U.S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipmen t. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification lab el. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the-case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to excee d 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[The] sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressur es or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[The] value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, partic ularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previous ly certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the h ose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard. o I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Donnell W. Morrison

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/14/95 LETTER FROM DONNELL W. MORRISON TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: Dear Mr. Morrison:

We have received your letter of March 14, 1995 and its attached copy of a letter dated February 14. I am sorry to say that your earlier letter never reached us.

You asked whether the mounting height requirements for clearance and identification lamps (Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) have been amended to allow their mounting in locations other than "as high as practicable."

The requirements have not changed since you were at DOT. The primary requirement is that identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable", and that clearance lamps are mounted "to indicate the overall width of t he vehicle . . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA wi ll not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

However, when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, paragraph S5.3.1.4 states that the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Further, if it is necessary to i ndicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear and need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard (paragraph S5.3.1. 1.1).

ID: nht95-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Bill Lieb -- Regional Sales Manager, ResTech

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM BILL LIEB TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10797)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lieb:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1995. You report that "a manufacturer of sealed beam automotive head lamps . . . . was told by [an adhesive supplier] . . . . that D.O.T. 'approval' is required prior to changing the adhesive used on head lamps."

Subsequently, you were told by Blane Laubis of this agency "that D.O.T. does not test, approve, or specify any adhesives, but just verifies that the completed unit meets the prescribed standards, and passes the appropriate tests." You ask if this is corr ect.

Mr. Laubis is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes requirements that must be met by sealed beam headlamps. As you learned in your review, Standard No. 108 contains no spec ifications for adhesives. This means the manufacturer may choose the adhesive that appears best suited to ensuring that its particular sealed beam headlamp complies with the performance requirements of Standard No. 108. The approval of the agency is no t required. The agency frequently buys and tests all types of headlamps as part of its compliance enforcement program.

I hope that this letter is sufficient for your purposes.

ID: nht95-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Ralph T. Welch

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/5/95 LETTER FROM RALPH T. WELCH TO NHTSA (OCC 10644)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mi leage may be stated in kilometers.

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehic le or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kil ometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km."

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

ID: nht95-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

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

TO: Tamera Reuvers -- Quality Assurance Manager, Viracon/Curvlite

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM TAMERA REUVERS TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10731)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Reuvers:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the marking of automotive glazing manufactured by two different companies. According to your letter, your company, V iracon/Curvlite, purchases bent tempered AS-2 glazing from a fabricator. Your company then laminates a piece of "SenryGlas" to the bent tempered product, thereby making it AS-15B glazing.

You asked how Viracon/Curvlite's glass-plastic glazing should be marked under S6.1 of the standard. Specifically, you asked whether there should be marking information about both the first company (the glass fabricator/temperer) and additional marking i nformation about the second company (Viracon/Curvlite, the laminator). You believe only Viracon/Curvlite need mark the product, since the company, as the laminator, would be fully responsible for its compliance.

We agree with your assessment. Viracon/Curvlite, as the manufacturer of the tempered glass-plastic glazing, would mark the product with the AS-15B designation. The glazing would not contain the marking of the supplier of the bent tempered product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.