ID: nht95-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

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

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 FAX FROM TILMAN SPINGLER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Howe ver, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembl y for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.

ID: nht95-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

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

TO: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/28/94 LETTER FROM RICHARD J. KINSEY TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting our concurrence on a procedure for determining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you would like to obtain the relevant information from your present purchasing systems rather than by soliciting the information from your foreign suppliers. You stated that both processes will result in the same information, and that you believe requiring your foreign suppliers to respond to requests for information would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on those suppliers.

We are now in the process of completing our response to several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on domestic content labeling. Your question is sufficiently related to some of the issues raised by the petitions that we believe it should b e addressed in the context of that response, rather than in a separate letter.

We realize, however, that manufacturers and suppliers have an immediate need for guidance regarding the procedures for making content determinations for the 1996 model year. In a recent letter (copy enclosed) to the American Automobile Manufacturers Ass ociation, we advised that NHTSA had decided to give manufacturers and suppliers for model year 1996 the same alternative they had last year, i.e., in lieu of following the required procedures, they may use other procedures that are expected to yield simi lar results. Therefore, your planned approach will not raise any concerns for model year 1996.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

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

TO: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/94 LETTER FROM KEN DAINING TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10316)

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As e xplained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicl e equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its produc ts meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the devi ce is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6 411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, deale r or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 1 05 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

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

ID: nht95-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Barbara Bailey -- Administrative Assistant to Steve Altick, Director/CEO, CAMP Berachah Christian Retreat Center

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney-Advisor Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Transportation of school students

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BARBARA BAILEY (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: In our phone conversation today, I addressed issues of specific concern to us in relation to the use of our vans by a school. You had asked that these questions be put in written form so that your agency could respond. PLEASE EXPEDITE via fax as soon a s possible. Material being presented on Friday morning here.

1. Camp Berachah has leased two vans. Those vans are borrowed for occasional use by a school for athletic activities, etc. Is it necessary for these vans to comply with Federal safety standards relating to school buses? Please discuss.

2. Must these vans comply with Federal safety regulations for school buses if Camp Berachah were to lend, rent or sublease them to a school? Please discuss.

Thank you for your swift response to this. And thank you again for your help over the phone.

ID: nht95-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Tillie Fowler -- Member, House Of Representatives

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Goodlife Motors Corporation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/19/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO TILLIE FOWLER (VSA 102(3)); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Dr. Martinez:

Enclosed is a letter from my constituent, Dail Taylor, regarding the letter he received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Mr. Taylor is concerned that bringing his electric car into compliance with NHTSA guidelines would be too costly and force him to stop manufacturing the vehicles. He has requested that I contact you to request a review of this situation. As a courte sy to my constituent, I am respectfully requesting that you review his letter and the letter he received from your office and contact me with information I can provide him. Also, please provide me with any alternative options that may be available to Mr . Taylor regarding-his electric car.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

March 6, 1995

The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member of Congress, 4th District, Florida 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207

Dear Tillie:

Goodlife Motors Corporation has made considerable progress toward the development of an electric car, since I gave you a ride in our first prototype vehicle at Fred Cone's home in late 1993.

I have enclosed photographs of our other prototype vehicles, and I will be sending you a video which demonstrates their performance and utility within the next two weeks.

We are now ready to manufacture the vehicles, but we have encountered a formidable roadblock by way of a letter ruling we received from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration, dated January 4, 1995 (copy enclosed).

As you will note, the letter requires our vehicle to comply with current safety standards. Alternatively, we may petition the agency for an exemption.

Tillie, if we are going to manufacture this electric car, we need your help. It would be far too expensive for our small business to comply with current safety standards. We could not even afford to go through the formal petition process with the USDOT .

Therefore, it appears that all of our efforts have been wasted, unless you can help us move forward. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed.

Sincerely yours,

Dail A. Taylor, President

Enclosure

ID: nht95-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

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

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel,

Thank you for your March 2, 1995 interpretation clarifying the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to deceleration warning systems. In the interpretation, you cited paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 as the basi s for prohibiting the flashing of a vehicle's stop lamps. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108, however, states:

Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.

Based on paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108 and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or leading vehicles are moving slowly or stopped, we seek your opinion on the followin g questions:

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

2. If such a device is permissible in principle, would the rear lighting configuration of the vehicle on which it was installed affect its permissibility? Specifically, on which of the following vehicles would installation of the device be permissible?

a) a vehicle with red, combined stop/turn signal lamps

b) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, red turn signal lamps

c) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, amber turn signal lamps

Once again, we appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. As before, Saline Electronics, Inc. has no objection to this letter and your response to it becoming a part of the public record.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 12, 1995

FROM: K. Olsen

TO: John Womack, active Chief of Council, Office of Chief of Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. OLSEN (A43; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROB PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD

TEXT: On May 9, 1994, Dealer purchased from Manufacturer, a new 1994 16' bumper pull flatbed trailer. This trailer had two 3500 lb. GVWR axles. This trailer was purchased from the manufacturer by the Dealer equipped with used tires.

On May 17, 1994 Dealer showed trailer to Customer. Customer was told that for $ 1175.00 the trailer comes with the tires on it or for an additional $ 200.00 dealer would put new tires on the trailer. Customer chose to purchase the trailer with the u sed tires at the lower price. The trailer was wired for brakes and lights but electrical plug was left off so one could be installed to match up with the existing electrical plug on a customers vehicle. Customer's vehicle had neither a brake control or existing electrical plug, so Dealer offered to sell the Customer a brake control for customer's truck and electrical plugs for brakes and lights for an additional $ 50.00 and Dealer would install them at no additional cost. Customer chose not to purcha se brake control or electrical plugs from Dealer.

On June 10, 1994 Customer's employee pulled said trailer (that weighs 1550 lbs.) down the freeway, loaded with a Uniloader (that weighs 6000 lbs.) pulled by a half-ton, short wheel base pickup (which has a 6,000 GVWR and weighs approx. 4800 lbs.). Th e driver of the vehicle lost control of the truck and trailer and the truck and trailer turned over.

The Customer is now bringing a law suit against the Dealer charging that the accident was caused by the Dealer for selling him a new trailer with used tires (and improperly wired brakes). The investigating officer's statement on the accident report r ead "Vehicle was Southbound in the # 3 lane when the trailer began to swerve uncontrollable. Vehicle ran off of the right side of the road and overturned. The trailer was carrying a CASE UNI Loader Model IF40." "According to Dennis Platt of UHP Safety Inspection, the brakes had not been working. This was shown by rust present on the inside of the left brake drum. Also, Dennis measured the tire tread to be 1/32 of an inch on both rear tires and 2/32 of an inch on both front tires. Both front tires al so had uneven tread. The wrecker driver at Sorensen's Marine and Autobody said that it appeared the trailer brakes had not been wired properly."

The reason for this request for interpretation is to try and determine the liability of the Manufacturer, Dealer or Customer in this matter.

ID: nht95-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 13, 1995

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: Philip R. Recht, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Information, FMVSS No. 118 "Power Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN (A43; STD. 118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

This is a request for interpretation relating to the maximum squeezing force requirement in Paragraph S5 of FMVSS 118. Paragraph S5 states the maximum squeezing force performance requirements required to be met by power-operated window, partition or roo f panel systems (for simplicity we will hereinafter refer to these as "power operated systems") which are capable of being closed under conditions other than those permitted in Paragraph S4, Operating Requirements.

The purpose of Paragraph S5 is to enable manufacturers to provide power operated systems which can be closed with remote control devices capable of operation beyond the distances specified in S4 or under circumstances other than those expressly limited i n Paragraph S4 by providing an automatic reversing system that limits the squeezing force to 100 Newtons. The intent of the 100 Newton squeezing force limitation in Paragraph S5 is to avoid injury to a person whose hand may be caught in the opening of t he power operated system as it is closing.

The 100 Newton force limitation is a restriction on power-operated window and roof panel systems which must be assured of closing under all environmental conditions and especially under low temperatures or in the event of some ice or other interference i n the track of the window or roof panel. Volkswagen requests your interpretation whether a system which reverses the closing of the window partition or roof panel within the 100 Newton limitation on an initial attempt to close, but which is then capable of closing with a higher force limitation in order to overcome any resistance due to low temperature or snow and ice interference conditions would still comply with the provisions of the standard.

Such a system would operate as follows:

1. An attempt is made to close the power-operated system and because of an obstruction or resistance to closing it reverses before exerting a squeezing force of 100 Newtons or more and then stops.

2. In order to assure that the window or roof panel is closed, the operator again initiates the closing and this time the automatic reversal system is not triggered at the 100 Newton limit but at a higher force level to overcome the resistance.

The intent of the Standard and to requirement of paragraph S5 is that in the event of an initial obstruction from a human hand or possibly a pet, the system would reverse within the injury avoidance threshold of 100 Newtons. There is no specific provisi on in paragraph S5 with regard to repetitive closing operations. (The higher force level of the second closing operation is not a safety concern because the operator would be alerted to avoid action until the opening is clear and any person in the area w ould be alerted to the fact that the operator is attempting to close the window or roof panel.) Volkswagen therefore requests your interpretation whether the squeezing force limitation of Paragraph S5 applies only to the first operation of a system and n ot to subsequent operations immediately thereafter, which are separately initiated by an operator in order to assure the closing of the roof panel or power window under adverse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the window or ro of panel track.

Because the issue relates to certain vehicle design decisions, your response as soon as possible is requested and will be appreciated.

ID: nht95-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Donnell W. Morrison

TO: Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.-49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1, 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DONNELL W. MORRISON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

This in in further reference to my February 14, 1995 letter regarding the cited sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. As of this date I have not received a reply to my inquiry. A copy of the February 14 letter is enclosed.

As I indicated in my February 14 letter I am working on a project and need to know if the cited sections of the CFR have been amended to allow the rear identification lamps and the rear clearance lamps to be mounted at a location other than specified in the tables mentioned above. In other words can both the rear identification and the rear clearance lamps be mounted at bed level. The tables in Standard 108 indicate the rear lamps mentioned are to be mounted as high as practicable.

A timely response to my inquiry would be very much appreciated.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

D. W. Morrison Engr. Consultant

1005 Dr innon Drive

Morristown, Tenn. 37814

615-587 0534

February 14, 1995

Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

Dear Administrator Martinez:

I am doing some research on a project and need to know if your organization has amended the cited sections of the CFR.

The question has been raised since I notice many semi-trailers in operation on the highway with all of the rear lighting devices down at bed level. If I understand the wording of the cited sections correctly the identification lamps are to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle and on the vertical center line.

If the standards have been amended I would appreciate your furnishing me with a copy of the rule making action. Notice of Proposed Rule Making and the Final Rule.

Sincerely,

DONNELL W. MORRISON

ID: nht95-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1995

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

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM RANDAL K. BUSICK TO MARY VERSAILLES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the s lider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictu res accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not b e a problem.

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