ID: nht92-3.13

DATE: 10/21/92

FROM: CHESTER I. NIELSEN III -- VICE PRESIDENT, SALES, WESTBAR CORPORATION

TO: WALTER B. MCCORMICK, JR. -- CHIEF COUNCIL, DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO CHESTER I. NIELSEN, III (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are writing for classification and possible further explanation of S5.3.1.1.1. in FMVSS 108. Our request involves mounting locations of clearance lamps on boat trailers which are 80 inches or more in width.

In 1989, S5.1.1.9. addressed one aspect relating to the mounting location for clearance lamps on boat trailers. This paragraph allows boat trailer builders a longitudinal variance from the strictest standard whereby the clearance lamps no longer have to be at the highest point nor rearward location on a boat trailer, when design of the trailer does not allow it in effort to protect the function of the lamp from damage during normal usage.

Several of our personnel, and several of the staff from one of our major trade organizations, believe there was an additional interpretation from the DOT. This additional interpretation, also directed at boat trailers, would allow a boat trailer manufacturer to draw an imaginary line through the (outboard) tire on each side of his trailer and then mount his red and amber clearance lights outside of these lines. The rationale was to provide desired width identification while providing protection of the light during normal use. A sketch below depicts the most inboard allowable mounting locations should this interpretation be confirmed by your office.

(GRAPHIC OMITTED.)

1 = most inboard allowable mounting location for amber clearance lamps.

2 = most inboard allowable mounting location for red clearance lamps.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your timely response to our request for a written confirmation of this mounting location interpretation.

ID: nht92-3.14

DATE: October 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mindy Lang -- Division Manager, Huntleigh Transportation Services, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/12/92 from Mindy Lang to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-7763)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 12, 1992, requesting information on regulations concerning bus conversions. Your company converts the interior of buses by installing such materials as carpets, wall coverings, and blinds. In particular you asked for information on regulations concerning the attachment of seats to vehicles and the material used for the construction of seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1181 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish one safety standard relevant to seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. There is one other safety standard that could be affected by the work your company performs. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, including buses.

If your company converts previously certified buses, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale ....

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that

the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. The label must also state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

Your company would not be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7 if the modifications involve only readily attachable components. However, the modifications would still be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.15

DATE: 10/16/92

FROM: SHIRLEY A. STEWART -- PRESIDENT, SAS ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC.

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-17-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO SHIRLEY A. STEWART (STD. 201; STD. 208; STD. 221; STD. 222; A40)

TEXT: In reference to an October 2nd meeting that I had with Messrs. Maurice Hicks and Rich Vaniderstine, Safety Standard Engineers, I presented a video tape on the installation of the silent monitor being installed on school buses. I also had a demo silent monitor box. We are requesting the federal motor vehicle safety standards interpretation on how those standards are applied for installation on school buses.

The silent monitor is a metal box designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses but can be used in hallways and classrooms. It is mounted by two angle brackets after cutting a 6 1/2" x 6 1/4" hole in the interior access door. The silent monitor box (6 x 6 x 6) is installed in the bus access door and will only protrude toward the interior of the bus 3 - 4 inches. The silent monitor is designed in a manner that keeps drivers and students from knowing if a video camera is in the locked box. The installer will use No. 10 x 1/2" self-drilling screws provided with the box and brackets to attach brackets to the access door and then install the camcorder into the box and focus the picture to the height of the words located in the rear of the bus that says, "emergency exit". The installer will then install the self-drilling screws in the silent monitor box and to the access door and the installation is complete.

The glass on our box is a reflective solar cool glass. This breaks the glare inside the box. The silent monitor box is 16 gauge, welded steel. Our box is designed to be tamper-proof and for safety. The lock is a 5-tumbler, brass lock for durability.

Enclosed are specifications and instructions for installation. Enclosed also is a picture that was taken on October 15th, on a Prince George's County school bus.

If there are any questions, please contact me at (703) 471-1450. (GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-3.16

DATE: October 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger, United States Senate

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Dave Durenberger to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC 7808)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the

requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.17

DATE: 10/15/92

FROM: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER, INC.

TO: MR. PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II (A40; STD. 110)

TEXT: This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.110, Paragraph 4.4.1(b) (FMVSS 110, "Tire Selection and Rims"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has performed FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car that is to be sold in the U.S. with more than one tire and rim configuration available. Tire retention tests were performed in accordance to NHTSA Test Procedure TP-110-02 at the left front and right rear wheel positions. Since more than one tire and rim configuration is available for the vehicle tested, each configuration was tested at the left front and right rear wheel positions. To save costs, it was desirable to switch only the tire and rim configurations at the test wheel positions while in some cases a different manufactured tire was left on the vehicle at the other wheel positions. In all tire and rim configurations tested, the tires and rims were alike in size, material, traction and type at each wheel position with the exception of a few cases which the tire manufacturer differed.

I cannot locate any information in the CFR 49, Part 571.110 or the NHTSA Laboratory Test Procedure TP-110-02 that indicates all tire and rim configurations are to be exactly alike during the tire retention tests. I have discussed the issue with Zack Fraser who is responsible for FMVSS 110.

Is this a test condition within the requirements of the standard?

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht92-3.18

DATE: October 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Wyatt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/1/92 from Ray Wyatt to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7271)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply

with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.19

DATE: 10/14/92

FROM: MICHAEL J. MOTZKIN, -- PRESIDENT, PIONEER PLUMBING, INC

TO: MR. PAUL JACKSON RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-14-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MICHAEL J. MOTZKIN (A40; STD. 105)

TEXT: I am trying to locate any government regulations pertaining to automotive brake drums and brake rotors. Most specifically, is there any government regulation which requires brake drums and brake rotors not be milled passed manufacturers specifications?

Secondly, is there any government regulation which requires manufacturers of automotive brake drums and brake rotors to stamp the manufacturers specification on the drum or rotor?

Currently I am involved in a legal action in the Small Claims Court and need any documentation or interpretation of the Federal Safety Act of 1964 pertaining to automotive brake drums and brake rotors. To date I have researched these two questions in depth and have been unable to find any documentation. The State of Arizona does not have a vehicle safety inspection program and therefore the information I am lookingfor is not readily available.

ID: nht92-3.2

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PATTI AUPPERLEE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-14-92 FROM PATTI AUPPERLEE TO DEE FUJIDA (OCC 7687)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, @ 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in @@ 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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 . . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of @ 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

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

ID: nht92-3.20

ID: nht92-3.21

DATE: 10/09/92

FROM: ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND, P.E.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND (STD. 213)

TEXT: Paul Jasinski of your Enforcement Division suggested I write you for an interpretation of Federal Vehicle Safety Standard 213. I am a consulting engineer engaged in the design of a rear facing infant seat for use in automobiles and aircraft.

My question refers to section S5.2.4 which has to do with protrusions. With reference to the attached sketch it may be seen that the frame of my seat is made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet. All the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 of an inch, the maximum possible on a 1/4 inch thick sheet. The corners, looking flatwise at the sheet, are 3.0 inch radius.

Does my design comply with S5.2.4? Do you consider the edges of my frame as protrusions? Since side loading is not specified in S7 could I conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame?

(DRAWING OMITTED)