ID: nht91-1.25

DATE: January 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-90 from Carol Zeitlow to Taylor Vincon (Vinson) (OCC 5550)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

With respect to Standard No. 108, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, 1990, stated that "the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color." Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. 108 changed, and "in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling."

Actually, our letter of August 27, 1990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. 108 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is "When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August 1970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September 1970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash; see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February 1966, also incorporated by reference.

We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. 108. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June 1966 and SAE J588d June 1966 originally incorporated in Standard No. 108 did not include override language. Standard No. 108 was amended on January 5, 1976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, 1978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, 1976, to September 1, 1978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit.

You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is 10,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination.

Finally, you asked whether Standard No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains "the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe", or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. 104 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-1.26

DATE: January 16, 1991

FROM: Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed. -- Regional Program Manager, NHTSA

TO: S.V. Kaaria

COPYEE: Kathleen DeMeter

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from S.V. Kaaria to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to S.V. Kaaria (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of January 3, 1991, seeking information about problems related to negotiating a settlement with auto manufacturers on a design you were involved in developing.

I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to:

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter General Law Division Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., NCC30 Washington , D.C. 20590

I hope this will be of assistance toward the resolution of your inquiry.

ID: nht91-1.27

DATE: January 22, 1991

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Ben Blaz

TITLE: Re Ref 0-3J001

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8))

TEXT:

On December 11, 1990 we wrote you the letter attached with a copy to Congressman Ben Blaz. Would you please advise if you received this letter and if you can shed any light on our query I do not believe it is in the best interest of the CNMI residence or the automobile distributors of the CNMI for this issue to continue to lie dormant.

Your early attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated as we sincerely wish to have this matter resolved one way or the other.

ID: nht91-1.28

DATE: January 24, 1991

FROM: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samuel Yk Lau (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturer of "Additional Brake Lamps" and are planning to export this product to the U.S.A.

The "Additional Brake lamp" is the add-on lamp which is usually mounted near the rear windshield of a private car and it turns on when the brake pedal is pushed. The product we manufacture now consists of light bulb, LED and red transparant plastic filter plate.

We would like to ask of there are regulations, standards or approval for this kind of product. Does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?

We will be very grateful if your department can give me the answers.

ID: nht91-1.29

DATE: January 24, 1991

FROM: Nancy J. Hunt -- Paralegal to John T. McDowell, Bankston & McDowell

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Nancy J. Hunt (A37; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am contacting you for the purpose of confirming the official ruling as it relates to FMVSS 301-75 (Rear Impact, Fuel Integrity Test Protocol) with respect to whether the spare tire is required to be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing.

We would appreciate a copy of any and all protocols, requirements, and regulations as well as any recommendations regarding the inclusion and/or exclusion of a spare tire during automobile testing. We would also welcome your comments or opinions regarding this matter.

Should you have any questions concerning our request, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht91-1.3

DATE: 01/01/91 EST

FROM: Stephen Mamakas -- AIR Inc.

TO: To whom it may concern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (A37; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We are starting a company which will be repairing deployed air bags. We would like to know what are the Federal Standards we require to comply with.

ID: nht91-1.30

DATE: January 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Barben -- Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from Jack Barben to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5293)

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of October 8, 1990, with respect to a lighted side rail for pickup trucks that you wish to sell in the aftermarket. The rail would be offered in colors of amber, hot pink, and hot yellow. Your literature shows the rails as mounted immediately above the right and left longitudinal sides of the pickup bed. You would like to know our position on compliance of this product.

Aftermarket lighting equipment is permissible under the statutes and regulations of our agency as long as its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You have informed us that your literature warns against installation of the device in any manner that would orient it towards the front or rear of the vehicle, rather than along its sides. Also, you would provide instruc- tions "for separate fusing of the electrical supply lines." Under these circumstances, we believe that there would not be any rendering inoperative of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108. Further, the lighted side rails would appear to enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle from the side, even though the colors you intend to offer are not the red of the vehicle's rear side marker lamp and reflector.

We are not in a position to advise whether the lighted side rails would comply with the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We recommend that you ask the opinion of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 on this issue.

You have commented that "This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such." However, based upon a telephone conversation between you and Bill Fox of my staff, I understand that you do not expect confidential treatment of any of the information in your letter. Therefore, both your letter and our reply will be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with our policy on interpretations.

ID: nht91-1.31

DATE: January 31, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott K. Hiler -- Manager, R & D Lab, The C.E. White Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1990 concerning a padded restraining device for use in school buses. The device is U-shaped, and the ends of the device attach to the two sides of a school bus seatback. The device folds down behind the seatback for the purpose of restraining persons seated in the next rearward seat. You asked whether the back side of the restraining device attachment cover falls outside of the "leg protection zone" as described in S5.3.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.222. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222 reads as follows:

The leg protection zones of each vehicle are those parts of the school bus passenger seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat back or restraining barrier.

You suggested that, if the restraining bar is installed as original equipment, the attachment cover is outside the leg protection zone because it "is an extension to the side of the seat and not part of the seat back surface area itself."

As discussed below, we do not agree with your suggested interpretation. I note that the pictures enclosed with your letter do not provide sufficient information to determine if the attachment cover is within the leg protection zone. However, I can explain how this determination should be made.

It is our opinion that once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback. As is the case with any other part of the seatback, if the attachment cover is bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the next rearward seat, it would be within the leg protection zone. If you determine that the attachment cover is

within the leg protection zone, it must meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222 or be moved so that it is no longer within this zone.

You also stated that, "upon retrofitting an existing seat," the attachment cover would not be within the leg protection zone because, "the seat back leg protection zone is already defined for that seat when originally installed without the device." We again disagree. The leg protection zone is defined by Standard No. 222, not by the original design of the seat. Therefore, the attachment cover cannot be installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business if the installation would violate the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This provision would be violated if the attachment cover does not meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 and is installed so that any part is within the leg protection zone.

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

ID: nht91-1.32

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Keller & Heckman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 from Thomas R. Mounteer to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5031)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (1) "new" vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the "kits" which Heritage also sells.

According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a "new" motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage.

Under section S4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.33

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Malinowski -- Small Business Center

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-14-90 from Jeffrey S. Malinowski to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5461)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Leo McCallum, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to his invention, a tie rod, safety bracket. You stated that the product would typically be installed by a vehicle owner to reduce tie rod end wear. As explained below, while no Federal safety standard directly applies to your client's product, he may nevertheless have certain responsibilities under this agency's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has no safety standard directly about tie rods or safety brackets used with tie rods.

As for installation of your client's device on vehicles in the aftermarket, such installations may be limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If installation of your client's product resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with a safety standard, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the product would have rendered inoperative a device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a standard. To avoid a "rendering operative" violation, your client should examine his product to determine if installing his product would result in the vehicle no longer complying with a standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your client's product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "tire rod safety bracket" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your client's product, your client as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the part so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the part with an identical or reasonably equivalent part which does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

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