ID: nht95-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: To Whom It May Concern,

I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato contacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.

The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and poor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert drivers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised.

Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support.

Enclosure

IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III

CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM

Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office

(Text omitted)

ID: nht95-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven B. Fisher, Esq. -- Kostow & Daar, P. C.

TITLE: Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM STEVEN B. FISHER TO PHILLIP R. RECHT (OCC 11096)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fisher:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked several questions relating to use of the word "practicable" in the lamp location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is "with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by 'practicable' as used in SS5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.4." Your second question is whose responsibility it is to make the determination of practicability. Your final question is whether there is any way for a manufacturer of "a single rear identification light" to know where a trailer manufacturer will install the product on any given trailer.

We don't see the word "practicable" in S5.3.1.1. However, S5.3.1.4 does provide that rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they "be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" when the rear identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle. Table II specifies location of lighting equipment on the vehicle, and it is therefore the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, in certifying that its vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, to determine what is practicable. As you indicate, a trailer manufacturer may make such a determination "in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved." NHTSA will not contest this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. In short, "practicable" as meant by S5.3.1.4 or any other place where the word occurs, is not a term defined by Standard No. 108, and derives its meaning from specific factual contexts. We note that the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1967) defines "practicable" as "capable of being done, effected, or put into practice with the available means" (p. 1127).

There is no responsibility under Standard No. 108 for the manufacturer of identification lamps to know where its products will be installed on the motor vehicle. Its responsibility under Standard No. 108 is to ensure that any identification lamp that it manufactures for replacement purposes is designed to conform to Standard No. 108's performance specifications and so certified at the time the lamp is shipped from the factory.

If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-6.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHSTA

TO: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/08/95 LETTER FROM NANCY TAVAREZ TO JOHN WOMACK (WALMA) (OCC 11118)

TEXT: Dear Ms Tavarez:

This is in response to your FAX of August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of "Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HB1 for the USA market." We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You state that "Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval."

Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action.

The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information.

There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certified in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles.

If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either.

However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix); (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number, individually or in any combination; and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, "(1)" is required by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, "(2)" by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and "(3)" by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information.

The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f); this also requires the base to be marked "HB1". However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraphs S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications for the HB1 light source.

If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, they may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above.

If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263.

ID: nht95-6.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Arent Fox

TO: John Womack, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (REDBOOK 2; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter you signed on June 6, 1995, to a plaintiff's attorney named C. Rufus Pennington, III, in which you commented on NHTSA's position on "designated seating positions."

In reading your letter, I have concluded that the Agency is not taking a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche. Could you confirm that I am correct in my conclusion.

I am also satisfied that your letter was not intended to influence any private litigation concerning the 911 SC Porsche. But as the matter has now become an issue, could you advise as to whether the Agency had any such interest.

ID: nht95-6.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esquire -- Arent Fox

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

This responds to your letter of August 30, 1995, concerning a June 6, 1995 letter from this office to C. Rufus Pennington, III. You asked us to confirm that the agency did not take a position as to whether there are "designated seating positions" in the rear of the 1979 911 SC Porsche.

You are correct. As the letter clearly states, "NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding.

I hope this information has been helpful.

ID: nht95-6.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries, Inc.

TO: John Walmack -- Chief Council ATSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO NANCY TAVAREZ (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walmack:

We are currently importing Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HBI for the USA market. Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval. We request you to please inform via fax the procedure to follow in order to obtain DOT approval for our automotive lights.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht95-6.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Meurer -- President, Green Motorworks

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM WILLIAM MEURER TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meurer:

This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1995, responding to mine of July 14. We note that you have withdrawn the application by PIVCO AS for temporary exemption from the automatic restraint requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, and have enclosed PIVCO AS's designation of you as its agent for service of process.

You have talked with Taylor Vinson of this office about your wish to import 12 City Bee electric vehicles manufactured by PIVCO AS, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j). Although requests for permission to import a vehicle under section 591.5(j) are normally made to the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Vinson advised you to address your letter to this office because you seek a waiver from a restriction on such importations set out in 49 CFR 591.7(c).

49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits, among other things, the importation of any motor vehicle that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section 30114 (formerly 15 U.S.C. 1397(j)) provides that the agency may exempt a nonconforming vehicle from section 30112(a) on terms that the agency "decides are necessary for research, investigation, demonstrations, training, or competitive racing events." Pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), an importer such as Green Motorworks, which is not a manufacturer of a motor vehicle certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may import a nonconforming vehicle for the purposes enumerated in section 30114 if the importer has received written permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We are construing your letter as a request pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j).

Under section 591.6(f)(1), such a request must contain "a full and complete statement identifying the vehicle . . . its make, model, model year or date of manufacture, VIN if a motor vehicle, and the specific purpose(s) of importation." The discussion of purpose must include a description of the use to be made of the vehicle, and, if use of the public roads is an integral part of the purpose for which the vehicle is imported, the statement shall request permission for use on the public roads, describing the use to which the vehicle shall be put, and the estimated period of time during which on-road use is necessary. Finally, the statement shall include the intended means of disposition (and disposition date) of the vehicle after completion of the purpose for which it was imported.

The Statement of Work that you enclosed indicates that the 12 noncomplying City Bees will be used in a Bay Area Station Car Demonstration Project that terminates September 15, 1997, the purpose of which is to determine the usefulness of electric cars for everyday short trips made by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) patrons who commute to work (28 additional cars to be provided in 1996 are to comply fully with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards). The project is financed by the Bay Area Quality Management District, the Advance Projects Research Administration of the U.S. Department of Defense, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, California Energy Commission, and California Department of Transportation. You have stated that the cars will be exported or destroyed at the end of the demonstration project.

Your statement is sufficiently complete that we can grant conditional permission at this point; when you provide the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with the information that is lacking, that office will provide you with the final permission necessary to importation. Specifically, you have not provided the model year or date of manufacture of the City Bees that will be imported, nor their VINs.

Under paragraph 591.7(c), the importer must "at all times retain title to and possession of" vehicles imported pursuant to section 591.5(j)(2)(i), and "shall not lease" them. You seek a waiver of this restriction because you intend to lease the City Bees to BART for the duration of the demonstration project.

I find that, under the general authority of section 30114, the agency may provide Green Motorworks with a waiver from the limitation set out in paragraph 591.7(c). First of all, section 30114 imposes no limitations on the agency's exemption authority. It simply provides NHTSA with the discretion to permit the importation of noncomplying vehicles for certain purposes "on terms [NHTSA] decides are necessary." Second, the restriction on possession, control, and leasing set out in paragraph 591.7(c) is not required by statute. It arose from the agency's effort to forestall attempts at subterfuge by importers.

The Statement of Work makes clear that the data derived from research, investigations, and demonstrations utilizing the 12 City Bees is sought and supported by several Regional, Federal, and State governmental agencies and a public utility and that the proposed lease to BART will facilitate the project. Finally we note that the City Bees will apparently meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with the exception of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Therefore, NHTSA believes that waiving paragraph 591.7(c) in this instance will be in the public interest.

If you have any further questions, you may again consult with Taylor Vinson on this matter at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-6.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"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 down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

ID: nht95-6.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raher:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht95-6.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yvonne Anderson -- Todd Vans

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Ms. Anderson:

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

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

After the first retail sale, there is a limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

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