ID: nht95-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1995

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

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568)

TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council.

This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength).

Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be del ivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis.

Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617.

ID: nht95-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1995

FROM: Signature Illegible; John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James V. Woodsmall, Esquire -- Warrick & Boyn

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 31, 1995 LETTER FROM JAMES WOODSMALL TO COLEMAN SACHS NOT AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woodsmall:

This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1995 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for affixing a certification label to motor vehicles, as found i n 49 CFR Part 567. Your letter states that you have made this request on behalf of a client who converts completed pickup trucks into larger trucks or sport utility vehicles. In this process of this conversion, your client removes the door-latch post o n which the original manufacturer's certification label is permanently affixed. As your letter states, it is not possible for this label to be removed without being completely destroyed.

Although not stated in your letter, in a prior telephone conversation with Mr. Sachs, you stated that the vehicles converted by your client have yet to be sold to their first retail purchaser. Given this circumstance, your client qualifies as a vehicle alterer. The certification requirements for vehicle alterers are stated in 49 CFR 567.7. That section provides that "[a] person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in @ 567.4 . . ."

As the conversions performed by your client entail the removal of the door latch post, it is clear that he cannot comply with the requirement that the original certification label be left on the vehicle. You have proposed as a solution to this problem t hat in addition to the alterer's label required by 49 CFR 567.7, your client be allowed to affix a copy of the original certification label to the vehicle. The copy would state that it is a replacement label affixed by your client because the original w as destroyed in the conversion process. This solution is acceptable to NHTSA, provided that the replacement label includes the explanatory text that you have proposed. In addition, we recommend that your client preserve the original label so that it ma y be furnished to the vehicle purchaser.

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

ID: nht95-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Hugh J. Bode -- Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HUGH J. BODE (REDBOOK 4; STD. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request that NHTSA confirm that the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require a motor vehicle to continue to comply with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard after it is sold to its first retail purchaser. Specifically, we ask that NHTSA confirm that a vehicle in use is not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 (hereinafter "FMVSS 124"), after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

The vehicle at issue is a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation in Japan and distributed by Chrysler Corporation in the United States. The pickup was equipped with a Mikuni Model 32-35-DIDEF-328 carburetor. When it was first sold, the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck was certified by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation as being in compliance with all then applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 124.

As we understand it, former @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conform ity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehic le. Safety Act former @ 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. @ 301 22(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

We ask that you confirm the accuracy of the foregoing general statement of the applicability of the FMVSS under the Safety Act. In addition, we ask that you address the following specific questions concerning the application of FMVSS 124 to the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup:

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

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

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

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

We thank you in advance for your assistance in confirming these points.

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.