ID: nht89-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECTION STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/22/89 FROM H. HASEGAWA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE, RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, 1989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8).

Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. 108. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed).

Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, 1989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, 1987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs.

Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.1(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0. 1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/21/88 FROM BRADLEY J. BAKER -- CLASSIC MANUFACTURING TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; OCC 2717

TEXT: Dear Mr. Baker:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with reference to a product your company manufactures, a "car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motor homes." You question whether the dolly is a motor vehicle, and if so, whether identifi cation lamps are necessary for it. I regret the delay in responding.

The car dolly appears to be a vehicle drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Specifically, it would be a "trailer", since it is a motor vehicle without motive power, designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires identification lamps on all trailers whose o verall width is 80 inches or more. Therefore, if the overall width of your dolly is less than 80 inches, it need not be equipped with identification lamps.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: J. BRETTSCHNEIDER -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: RICHARD VAN IDERSTINE -- DOCKET SECTION, NHTSA

TITLE: PERFORMANCE OF THE IMPACT TEST ACCORDING SAE J1383

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-29-90 TO J. BRETTSCHNEIDER, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA.

TEXT:

According to the above-mentioned SAE Standard (recommended practice), Section 4.10.3, the impact test has to be performed ... along the mechanical axis ...

SAE Standard J 579, Section 2.14 defines the mechanical axis as ... perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens.

Now the questions arise

- where is the geometric center of a lens without aiming pads?

- where is the geometric center of a lens which moreover covers two compartments, one for the lower beam and one for the upper beam?

Please give us your advice.

Thanking you in advance.

ID: nht89-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: CADWALLADER JONES -- PRESIDENT, JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 102(14); PART 571.3]

TEXT: We need some help in the interpretation of Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This involves the sale, lease or rental of Ford Motor Company manufactured Econoline Vans and Club Wagons. We understand that these vehicles having more than 10 designated seating positions are not intended for use as "school buses" and are not designed to comply with certain Federal Motor vehicle safety standards uniquely applicable to school buses. We understand that a school bus is defined in S ection 571.3 as a "Motorvehicle -- designed for carrying more than 10 persons -- that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed a nd sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

We have questions of further definition of "school bus" and of "student".

1. Is there an age limit or occupational definition of "student"?

A) Adults being transported to and from adult education classes by United Way.

B) College students-athletic teams, etc.

C) Churches that don't have day schools but transport children on occasions

D) Highschool students-athletic teams, etc.

E) Playground teams-no connection with schools

F) Day care center

We understand the prohibition against installing smaller size seats in a window van and painting it school bus yellow like we used to do in the '70s. It's these "fringe" uses that are not on a daily basis about which we are concerned.

We will appreciate your help in this area.

ID: nht95-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

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

TO: Randal Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/14/94 letter from Randal Busick to Mary Versailles

TEXT: Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 3 9472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance be tween the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

. . . for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a min imum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as any component, other t han the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure cau ses separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally . If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 o f Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

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

TO: Ms. Robin R. Miller -- DaRosa and Miller

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/22/94 letter from Robin R. Miller to Mary Versailles (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Miller:

This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corpora tion (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor ve hicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 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 co nformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA 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.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation req uirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by mea ns that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test d ummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts a re not used).

In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for p elvic restraint."

You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the ex emption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automa tic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already man ufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments.

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

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: Ralph T. Welch

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 1991 Coachmen RV Class C Motorhome, Model: Leprechaun 248 DD MM Ser:1TCC03677M1001007

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO RALPH T. WELCH (A43; STD. 101)

TEXT: On Dec. 15, 1994, I wrote to your office regarding incorrect date of manufacture posted on the outside of this motorhome.

I had another question regarding this motorhome, but overlooked including it in that letter.

Would you please advise me if there are any federal laws or regulations pertaining to the type of odometer installed on a motor vehicle sold in the United States?

We were not told when we purchased this vehicle that it had an odometer that registered kilometers instead of miles per hour. As a result I had to make a number of trips to the dealer's shop for repair. In addition a statement had to be filed with DMV regarding replacement, and the title had an endorsement stating that the mileage was not correct. I have no way of knowing the extent that this affected the value of the coach, but suspect that it did.

The dealer who purchased the coach from the factory, has stated that he did not order this coach to be equipped with this type of odometer.

If further information would be helpful please let me know.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th St. S W Washington, D C 20590

December 15 1994

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RE LABEL, DATE OF MANUFACTURE ON EXTERIOR OF MOTORHOME

Would you advise if it is a violation of Federal Law, or Regulations to place a false date of manufacture on the exterior of a motorhome? When we purchased this motorhome we noticed a label on the outside of the coach stating that the coach was manufact ured 5/91. However after we agreed to purchase the vehicle, we found on closer inspection that the coach manufacturers label on the door post showed a different date. This date was 10/80. This label is only visible when one opens the right hand door a nd bends over to read the label. The label on the outside of the coach is readily observable when one enters the coach.

A photograph of the coach showing the label is enclosed. Also enclosed is a photocopy of letter from Coachmen Industries with a copy of a label, this one with a corrected date. Additional correspondence is enclosed from the manufacturer, furnishing var ious explanations for this false label.

I do not know the reason why this incorrect date was placed on the coach, but I do know that it misled me into thinking that I was buying a coach just over a year old, when I was really getting a coach almost two years old.

Yours truly,

RALPH T. WELCH 840 SE SUMMIT DR ROSEBURG OR 97470 503-673-0586

cc: Coachmen Industries, Thomas Corson, Chairman of Board Coachmen Industries, Michael Pangburn Esq. (w/o enc.)

ID: nht95-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 5, 1995

FROM: J. Gregory Studemeyer

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Safety standards for school buses

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/27/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. GREGORY STUDEMEYER (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It is my understanding that passenger vans meeting the definition of "school bus" as defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, must meet certain safety standards. It is further my understanding that these safety standards are implemented by prohibiting manuf acturers and dealers from selling new vehicles which meet the definition of "school bus" to educational institutions.

Notwithstanding the fact that the burden of enforcing these standards is placed upon manufacturers and dealers, can you advise as to whether or not your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these requirements.

ID: nht95-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Lois Castillo -- Travel Tray, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/27/94 from Lois Castillo to Joan (John) Womack (OCC 10464)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Castillo:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Womack of my staff, asking about safety regulations for the "Travel Tray," a product you wish to manufacture. The brochure you enclosed with your letter states that the Travel Tray is a plastic tray that is desig ned to lay across the top of a child's car seat. The tray attaches to the car seat by the use of straps with "velcro" ends. Children would use the tray to "play on with their toys or to eat on."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) N o. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.213.) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seat s," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if the Travel Tray were marketed as part of a car seat, the car seat would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard, with the tray a ttached.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 213 prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. Your tray is incapable of restraining a test dummy in a crash. Since the tray is unable to restrain the dummy, a car seat with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a car seat could not sell such a tray as a part of its child seating system.

If your tray is manufactured and marketed separately to consumers who own child seats, the tray would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard applies to new child restraint systems, or car seats, that are design ed to restrain, seat or position children. Your tray sold by itself would not be designed to restrain, seat or position children and thus would not be subject to this standard.

While no FMVSS applies to the Travel Tray, 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 of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remed y of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . a ny part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in v ehicles by commercial businesses instead of car seat owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in the categories listed in section 30122, that would constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of section 3 0122.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht95-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

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

TO: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/18/94 letter from Jerry G. Sullivan to Mary Versailles (OCC 10443)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on n on-school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section @5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating pos itions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door a s an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht