ID: 9886

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Greiff PARS Passive Rhckhaltesysteme GmbH Borsigstrabe 2 63/55 Alzenau Germany

Dear Mr. Greiff:

This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301.

Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standards referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: nht72-5.29

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 5, 1972, requesting an opinion as to how manufacturers may take into account a vehicle's speed capability in establishing GAWR.

The Certification regulations do not specify particular speed criteria for establishing weight ratings. As a minimum, however, we believe the speed chosen should reflect the maximum speed at which it is reasonable to expect the vehicle to be driven. In the case where a vehicle is subject to some low-speed uses, such as seasonal use as a snow plow, we believe the figure on the certification label should be based on that use of the vehicle in which its expected speed is greatest. The regulations do not provide for variable ratings based on speed.

Finally, you ask whether cautionary labels dealing with GAWR and GVWR figures may be installed in the cab. The NHTSA does not object to the use of such labels. They may be used, as appropriate, to indicate permissable use of higher loads in low-speed applications.

ID: 2914yy

Mr. Rick Weisbrod
Vice President Marketing
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras Street
Farmington, New Mexico 87401

Dear Mr. Weisbrod:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1991 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by "various entities" that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer.

As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an "alterer," if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise "due care" in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard.

When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that:

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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Thus, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not "render inoperative" compliance with Standard No. 301.

While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:301 d:4/l/9l

ID: 18065.nhf

Mr. Ron Smith
Vice-President
Access Wheels, Inc.
7101 North 55^th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter in which you asked whether you are required to conduct impact crash tests as a prerequisite to complying with federal safety requirements. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you modify minivans and full-size vans, both before and after the first retail sale, to accommodate persons with disabilities. The modifications you perform typically involve installing wheelchair lift mechanisms in full-size vans and wheelchair ramp assemblies in lowered floor minivans. You explain that you install various combinations of equipment acquired from a large number of manufacturers and suppliers in your modifications. You explain that you rely on an assortment of impact crash test data, other testing, and engineering analysis in determining whether the vehicle complies with the safety standards. You state that you believe you have exercised due care with respect to these determinations and compliance with all the applicable safety standards. In light of these circumstances, you have asked whether you are required to conduct multiple crash tests. As discussed below, Access Wheels is required to assure that each of the vehicles it manufactures complies with all applicable safety standards, but it is not required to conduct crash tests of any of its vehicles to certify compliance with these standards.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or their vendors. Instead, the motor vehicle safety statutes, found in Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, establish a self-certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of the safety standards specifies performance requirements. Dynamic tests are prescribed under some of the standards, such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, the agency does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating a vehicle or equipment item to determine whether it complies with the requirements of an applicable standard, provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment item will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

According to 49 U.S.C. 30115, a person may not certify a vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person had reason to know the certification is false or misleading in a material respect." NHTSA has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstance in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

Since some of your modifications occur after the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, you should also be aware of the statutory prohibition against making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements or the safety standards, please contact Ms. Nicole Fradette of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.10/22/98
ref:VSA

ID: nht88-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joanne Salvio -- Fire Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/13/80 letter from F. Berndt to FWD Corporation (Std. 206)

TEXT: Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus (sic)." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph @4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodati ons" referred to in @4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206.

Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefigh ters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect re lating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure - see 8/13/80 letter from Frank Berndt to FWD Corporation

TO: Ericka Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

DATE: November 10, 1987

SUBJECT: Guardian Gate

As per my telephone conversation with Ms. Hom, I am enclosing a copy of our Guardian Gate literature. We are trying to determine whether it is necessary for us to meet Regulation #206 or whether it does not apply to our product.

Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Fire Research Corp. after year of development announces a new product for the fire service. This new gate is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus. This new design, PAT. PENDING, has a unique feature n ot available on any other door or gate. That is a dual locking concept. This gate actually locks on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side. Thus, minimizing the chances for the gate to open up under hazardous conditio ns. The new locking mechanism actually lifts the gate up out of dual catches which allows it to be swung open. The gate handle with its unique design minimizes the possibility of inadvertently opening the gate unintentionally.

INTRODUCTORY PRICE $575 PER FAIR

MEASURING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING

LOCATE HINGE LOCKS M1 & M2 AND SECONDARY LOCK M3 ON VEHICLE SO THAT TOP RAIL IS LOCATED AT A SAFE HEIGHT. M3 SHOULD BE LOCATED AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE.

ID: nht94-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, W indshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 10 4. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must als o be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe p attern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement du ring system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at l east 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of en gine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpo se passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, howeve r, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht73-1.6

DATE: 09/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for confirmation of your interpretation of two sections of Standard No. 105a.

You ask first whether S5.3.1 requires that the activation of an indicator lamp upon application of 50 pounds of force be instantaneous, or whether a minimal time lag is permissible. You indicate that in a "panic stop" there is a time lag of approximately 100 milliseconds between application of 50 pounds of force and lamp activities in the VW system. Since, as you state, it is "humanly impossible" to discern such a minimal time lag, we consider that the VW system complies with S5.3.1, and that the lamp is activated upon application of 50 pounds of force.

You are also correct in your interpretation of S5.2.1 that the 5-minute requirement applies only to vehicles that do not exceed the limit of traction on a 30 percent grade.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

August 8, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This letter is a request for interpretation of certain language in S5.3.1 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

In regard to this matter a meeting was held on August 6, 1973 with personnel of the NHTSA and Volkswagen representatives. In attendance were Messrs. Taylor Vincent, E. Driver, C. Baker and V. Bloom of the NHTSA, and Messrs. G. Riechel, J. Kennebeck and K.H. Ziwica of Volkswagen of America.

1. S5.3.1 provides that "an indicator lamp shall be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position and whenever any of the following conditions occur: (a) a pressure failure in any part of the service brake system, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, before or upon application of either (1) . . . or (2) 50 pounds of control force upon a fully manual service brake".

In the above mentioned meeting with the NHTSA, VW representatives described the conditions under which the brake failure system used by Volkswagen actuates if a failure in one of the subsystems has occurred. By using a normal or slow force application rate as shown in example "d" of attachment I, the failure indicator lamp will be activated before 50 pounds of control force are reached. By using a very fast application rate as shown in example "b" of attachment I, the indicator lamp will be activated with a certain time lag from the point where 50 pounds are reached. This characteristic is further illustrated in attachment II containing test data of a very slow control force application, and in attachment III for a panic brake force application.

In the discussion with the NHTSA representatives there was agreement that in regard to a fast control force application the wording in S5.3.1(a) "upon application of 50 pounds" does not mean that the failure indicator light must be activated instantaneously if a 50 pound control force is reached, but rather a certain time lag would be permissible before the warning light illuminates. For the panic brake situation, a time lag of approximately 100 ms, after 50 pounds control force are reached, was considered reasonable.

Based on the above mentioned discussion, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with written confirmation indicating that with a fast control force application the wording "upon application of 50 pounds" in S5.3.1(a) does not prohibit a reasonable time lag before the failure indicator lamp is activated. We want to emphasize that this interpretation would not detract from the safety intent of the requirement for failure indicators, as it is humanly impossible to discern such a minimal time lag.

2. According to S5.2.1, a parking brake system of a passenger car "shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction of the braked wheels) for five minutes".

It is our understanding from the aforementioned discussion with the NHTSA personnel that the five minute requirement only applies to a vehicle which is able to be kept stationary by its parking brake at 30% inclination. A vehicle which slides down the 30% inclination with wheels locked by the parking brake is not required to meet the five minute requirement.

We also would appreciate receiving your written confirmation to this interpretation of S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

J.W. Kennebeck --

Manager,

Safety and Development

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment B

Broke Pedal applied very fast failure induced in rear circuit

ID: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579

ID: nht68-2.44

DATE: 12/17/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Perley A. Thomas Car Works, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1968, to Mr. E. Leysath of this Bureau, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you indicated, paragraph S3.4.3 of initial Standard No. 108, which was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967, required that tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. The effective date of the initial standard was January 1, 1968. However, on December 16, 1967, an amendment to the initial standard was published in the Federal Register. This amendment delayed the effective date of paragraph S3.4.3 until May 1, 1968, and in addition revised that paragraph to require, as a minimum, that the fail lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 were not applicable to vehicles manufactured during the period of January 1, 1963 through April 30, 1968. During that period, selection of the lamp switching arrangement was at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht94-7.38

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Amendment to FMVSS 571.217 published in the Federal Register November 11, 1992 (Docket 88-21 notice No. 3)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Eric T. Stewart (A42; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

The background to this amendment indicates that the "final rule requires a minimum of 1 inch wide retro-reflective tape ...." (page 49421). The actual amendment reads that the retro-reflective tape is to be "a minimum 3 centimeters wide". (page 49425) (CFR571.217 S 5.53(c)). These two dimensions are not the same since 1.00 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters.

I believe that the intent of this rule making was to make the retro-reflective tape 1.00 inch wide and an error has taken place in converting the dimension to metric units. I am requesting written clarification indicating how wide NHTSA wants the retro-reflective tape around the outside perimeter of a school bus emergency door.

If you have any questions, please call me at (419) 221-2525.