ID: aiam3964

Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral part of the movable shield and may be attached during test configuration II.; Your client, Collier- Keyworth, has designed a child restraint tha integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.; I suggest, however, that Collier- Keyworth incorporate into th restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.; In the late 1970's, there were several child restraint designs whic had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restrain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.; When amended Standard No. 213 was being promulgated, the agency decide to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.; Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that sectio S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.; During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shield to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.; The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loade and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, sas would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a 'warning' label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4704

"Dear Mr. Cooper: This responds to your letter asking this agency t consider a problem your company faces with respect to Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, you asked how some of your buses could be certified as complying with the emergency exit labeling requirements set forth in Standard 217 for buses other than school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. Paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 provides that, in buses other than school buses, each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation 'Emergency Exit' followed by concise operating instructions, describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. The purpose of this requirement is to identify for bus occupants the location and explain the use of specially-installed emergency exits. As I understand your letter, you have no difficulties providing appropriate instructions in the specified location. Paragraph S5.5.1 continues with the following language: When a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label...that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space. The terms 'adjacent seat' and 'occupant space' are defined in S4 of Standard 217 as follows: 'Adjacent seat' means a designated seating position located so that some portion of its occupant space is not more than 10 inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. 'Occupant space' means the space directly above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the seat faces. You stated that many of your buses have seats that face the aisle and that back up against windows designated as emergency exits. These aisle-facing seats are 'adjacent seats' with respect to the emergency exits. The release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the 'occupant space' for these aisle-facing seats, since the release mechanisms are behind, not above, these seats. You enclosed a group of photographs to further illustrate this situation. Since the release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the occupant space of these adjacent aisle-facing seats, paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 requires a label indicating the location of the release mechanism for the emergency exit to be placed within the occupant space for these seats. You have noted that the occupant space for these seats does not include any place to which this label could be attached. The nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the aisle-facing seats face is the aisle facing seat on the opposite side of the bus. There are no intervening objects other than narrow vertical stanchions in the center of the aisle. Additionally, you suggested that placing the label on the floor or ceiling of the bus would not serve the purposes of this requirement, since those locations would not be readily visible to the seated occupant in an emergency situation. In response to your letter, we have carefully considered the labeling requirements of S5.5.1 as they apply to aisle-facing seats in front of windows that serve as emergency exits. The final rule adopting this additional labeling requirement explained that NHTSA was concerned that an occupant of an adjacent seat might hinder egress through an emergency exit if the occupant did not know how to use the emergency exit. See 37 FR 9394, at 9395, May 10, 1972. In instances in which the release mechanism itself is not within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label within the occupant space directing the occupant of the seat to the emergency exit instructions will help reduce the likelihood that the occupants would inadvertently obstruct egress through the emergency exits. NHTSA's goal of minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits is equally applicable to forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. However, the means of achieving that goal (i.e., placing a label within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, if the release mechanism is not within that occupant space) may not be equally successful for forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. The agency did not focus upon aisle-facing seats when it adopted this labeling requirement. With respect to forward-facing seats, it is relatively simple to locate a label within the occupant space that will be readily visible both to seated occupants and to persons standing in the aisle, as required by S5.5.2. However, with respect to aisle-facing seats, there may not be any location within the occupant space of such seats where a label could be placed so that the label would be visible to occupants of the seat and to persons standing in the aisle. If the labels were not visible in an emergency, such labels would not further NHTSA's goal of minimizing inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits. Accordingly, we plan to issue a notice proposing to amend and clarify the requirements of S5.5.1 of Standard 217 as they apply to aisle-facing seats. Please note that, unless and until a final rule amending S5.5.1 of Standard 217 becomes effective, the current requirements of S5.5.1 remain in effect for aisle-facing seats. However, the agency believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to enforce the requirement in S5.5.1 that additional information be labeled within the occupant space of aisle-facing seats given the uncertainty that such labels will serve the purpose for which the labeling requirements were established, as noted above. Accordingly, until the agency makes a final decision on the proposed rulemaking mentioned above, NHTSA will not take any enforcement actions against bus manufacturers that do not place a label indicating the location of the nearest emergency exit release mechanism within the occupant space of adjacent aisle-facing seats. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

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: 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: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579

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: 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: nht94-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/19/94 From S. Greiff To US Department of Transportation (OCC-9886)

TEXT: 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 standar ds 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,

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.