ID: nht94-7.27

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: Marvin A. Leach -- Regional Program Manager, Region VIII, NHTSA

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Robert L. Montgomery (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN A. LEACH TO ROBERT HELLMUTH:

Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

Please find enclosed a request for information related to the conspicuity rule, from a local business in Denver. Since they are requesting an opinion, it is beyond the scope of our office to assist. They have forwarded considerable detail and I hope you will be able to be of assistance.

We have had a number of requests for information on the rule, and in most instances sending a copy has sufficed.

I know your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN LEACH TO ROBERT MONTGOMERY:

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

It will not be possible to answer your "conspicuity" question from our office here in Denver. I have forwarded your letter and pictures to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington, and asked them to respond to your request.

I hope this will provide the information your need and thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/9/94 LETTER FROM ROBERT MONTGOMERY TO MIKE BAKER:

Mr. Mike Baker, State Director Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 555 Zang St

Lakewood, CO 80228

REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am enclosing two photos. Photo number one depicts the conspicuity stripes as they come from the manufacturer. They are mounted on the Doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. As you can see, it is necessary to offset the rear red and orange logo striping so that the stripes no longer make an even continuous line around the trailer.

Photo number two depicts the rear of an identical trailer where the reflectorized material was installed between and in line with the taillight assemblies. This installation is 46 inches which is 4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. The material DOES NOT extend form the extreme edges of the trailer as in photo number one.

S5.6.1.4.1 allows for "as close as practical" to both height and width.

We would, of course, prefer to equip the rear of our trailers as depicted in photo number two: 1) To avoid the need to offset our red and orange reflectorized striping and 2) to bring the conspicuity striping down more to eye level and in line with the rear lamps.

The diagram provided in the register does show the reflectorized striping from edge-to-edge but the artist failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van and which basically interferes with proper height and width placement on most trailers.

Would it be possible to obtain a written interpretation as to the legality of compliance with the regulation as to the installation of the reflectorized striping shown in photo number two, in a prompt and timely manner.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Robert L. Montgomery, Safety Manager Leprino Transportation Division

ATTACHMENT:

58414 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 238 / Thursday, 12-10-92 / Rules and Regulations. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.28

DATE: March 23, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Zander -- AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds (New Carlisle, IN)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/93 from Richard A. Zander to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle 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.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the REQUIRED DECELERATION within 1 second and, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTAIN IT for the remainder of the stopping time.

Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a MINIMUM, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average." The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even

for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s).

In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

ID: nht94-7.29

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Miller -- Product Support Manager, Load King

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/93 from Joe Miller to John Womack

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX December 10, 1993.

You have informed us that Load King manufactures trailers, selling them to a dealer in Minneapolis who, in turn, sells these trailers to customers/ users. You would like the dealer "to do some finish manufacturing for us." "Specifically, you would like the dealer "to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping." You ask whether "primed trailers can be moved without conspicuity striping in this case."

The answer is no. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations, when a completed motor vehicle is delivered to its dealer, it must be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it must, in fact, comply with all such standards at the time of delivery. Thus, your trailers are required to be equipped with the conspicuity treatment at the time of shipment since the treatment is a requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Minneapolis dealer, however, may apply paint and decals since this is not required under Standard No. 108 or any other regulation.

Were the trailer one that is manufactured in more than one stage, our regulations would permit the final stage manufacturer to apply the conspicuity treatment since that manufacturer is required to affix the necessary certification of compliance with all standards upon completion of the final stage of manufacture. However, painting and application of the conspicuity treatment are regarded as minor finishing operations that do not rise to the level of being a separate stage of manufacturing, and this exception is not available under the facts that have been presented to us.

ID: nht94-7.3

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.30

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: Gerald J. Gannon -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Stanley Scheiner - Office of Market Incentives; Barbara A. Gray - Office of Market Incentives; Charles W. Babcock, Esq. - General Motors Legal Staff; Milford R. Bennett - General Motors Safety Center; Richard F. Humphrey - General Motors Safety Center; Lorenzo B. Perkins - General Motors Safety Center

TITLE: FMVSS 114 - Automatic Transmission Park-Lock Override

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9-16-94 letter from John Womack to Gerald Gannon (A42; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests the opinion of the Chief Counsel's Office on this question: did the agency intend to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device? Uncertainty results from provisions added to FMVSS 114 on March 26, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 12464, 12469) that were basically continued on January 17, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2039).

BACKGROUND

May 30, 1990

The agency amended FMVSS 114 to require vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" position to have a key-locking system that prevents removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. "The amendment is intended to reduce the potential for accidents caused by shifting the transmission lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmissions.", by children (55 Fed. Reg. 21868). In the Preamble the agency approved of an ignition key-operated manual override device:

"The agency has decided that a superior approach is to permit a manual override to the electrical shift system, but only if such an override has to be operated by the key used to control the vehicle." (emphasis added)

(Id. at 21873, left column)

Use of such a key-operated override device was not limited to a vehicle whose steering is prevented after removal of the key.

March 26, 1991

Responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Final Rule, the agency amended the above Final Rule primarily to permit certain key-less override devices so that in the event of electrical failure the ignition key can be removed or the transmission shifted out of "park". This was done because in the event of a battery failure certain vehicle designs would not permit removal of the key from the ignition or shifting the transmission from "park" to facilitate towing. At the same time the agency attempted to add to the regulation permission to use the previously approved ignition key-operated override device (56 Fed. Reg. 12464).

The Preamble to that response states:

One way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle roll-away is to permit an override that is operable only by the vehicle's key because this typically ensures that the override is being activated by an authorized user. The preamble to the final rule explained that such a key-operated override was permissible. Based on the apparent confusion caused by not expressly stating this in the regulatory text, upon reconsideration, the agency has modified Standard No. 114 so that section S4.2.2(b) now states that the means for activating the override device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3 of the standard.

...

The agency emphasizes that the amendment permits a key-less emergency override only if theft protection is ensured by a steering lock. (emphasis added)

(Id at 12466, 12467)

S4.2.2(b) was added to permit moving the automatic transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key from the ignition by activating an emergency override device. If the device is activated by the key, as defined in S3, the device need not be covered. If there is a key-less device, the device must be "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool."

The Preamble to that Final Rule suggests the phrase "provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed" was inadvertently placed as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. The device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

(Supra at 12469)

However, to be consistent with the Preamble concern about theft protection for only a key-less override device, the phrase should have been located as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. Provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, the device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

January 17, 1992

In response to Toyota and Honda's petitions for reconsideration of the March 1991 rule the agency stated "the notice further amends the requirements to provide manufacturers appropriate flexibility while continuing to meet the need for safety" and delayed until September 1, 1993 "the requirement for inaccessibility for the emergency release button on the transmission shift override device". The increased flexibility expressly allows releasing a key in any gear shift position in the event of battery failure. The delay of the requirement to cover a key-less transmission shift override device was intended to help manufacturers unable to meet the September 1, 1992 effective point. (57 Fed. Reg. 2039-40)

At that time the agency reiterated:

The May 1990 final rule permitted only key-based override systems. In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA also decided to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof". . . . Accordingly, the agency decided to permit key-less override devices only if they are covered by a non-transparent device which, when in place, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(Supra at 2040)

With respect to transmission shift override devices the Final Rule resulting from that rulemaking states:

S4.2.2(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

(Supra at 2043 - emphasis added))

OUR INTERPRETATION

We believe that the agency intended to continue to permit use of an ignition key-operated shift override device in all vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision. We do not believe that the agency for the first time intended, without comment, to limit a shift override device "operated by the key used to control the vehicle" only to vehicles whose steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition. Although the steering prevention concern expressed in the Preamble was confined to key-less shift override devices, the Final Rule might be interpreted to limit even an override device operable by the ignition key to a vehicle whose steering is prevented when the key is removed. However, since an ignition key-operated shift override device requires use of that key, it could also be argued that the key is no longer removed from the vehicle, and is required to be used by someone who is authorized and therefore steering need not be prevented.

SUGGESTION

In the event that the agency concurs with my interpretation, in some future rulemaking the agency may also wish to clarify the regulation as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

CONCLUSION

General Motors would like the flexibility to offer automatic transmission-equipped vehicles with a "park" position and an ignition key-operated shift override device in vehicles that would only prevent forward self-mobility after key removal as allowed by FMVSS 114 S4.2(b). Repeated Preamble comments regarding such a key-operated override device would permit this design. Your concurrence with this interpretation would be appreciated.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this matter further with you. If there are any questions, please contact me at (313) 974-1610.

ID: nht94-7.31

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/94 from D. E. Hawkins to John G. Womack (OCC-9540)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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.

ID: nht94-7.32

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/93 from Lawrence P. White to Mary Versie (OCC-9479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part S568.6).

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push-out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window).

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side

emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the notion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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

ID: nht94-7.33

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wolf Ebel -- President, Schroth Restraint Systems Biomatik USA Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/94 to Mary Versailles from Stephen M. Monseu (OCC-9550)

TEXT:

This responds to a September 22, 1993, letter from Mr. Stephen M. Monseu of your company, asking whether the products manufactured by Schroth Restraint Systems (the Rally 3, Rally 4, and Autocontrol harness belt systems) meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The September 22 letter stated that these are after-market belt systems, intended for installation in addition to the factory-installed occupant protection system. This also responds to a January 5, 1994, letter asking whether the Schroth restraint systems would meet the requirements of Standard No. 208 if they were installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of 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 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. Thus, while I cannot advise concerning whether or not the Schroth restraint systems comply with applicable safety standards, I can explain how the standards would apply to these products.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the Schroth restraint systems.

The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the Schroth restraint system occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the Schroth restraint system installed in the vehicle.

Standard No. 208 requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross-vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The belt installation requirements can be divided into three categories:

. Automatic crash protection systems which protect their occupants by means 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 dummy, 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 are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

. Type 2 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints."

. Type 1 seat belt assemblies, defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint."

The Schroth restraint-systems would not be considered automatic safety belts, and therefore could not be used in place of an air bag to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for seating positions requiring automatic crash protection.

The Schroth restraint systems would be considered Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Therefore, if the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 (discussed later in this letter), and if the anchorages for the Schroth restraint systems meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, they could be installed to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 2 seat belt assembly. This would include installation of the Schroth restraint system with an air bag. Please note, however, that the dynamic testing requirement must be met both with and without the Schroth restraint system. In addition, because Standard No. 208, like all safety standards, is a minimum standard, the Schroth restraint systems could be installed to

satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 208 for any seating position requiring a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Please note however, that the Schroth restraint system does not appear to comply with certain sections of Standard No. 208, specifically:

. S7.1.1.3, which requires emergency locking retractors on the lap belt portion of safety belts in the front outboard seating positions.

. S7.1.2, which requires the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt to be at least six inches from the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant.

. S7.2(c), which requires release at a single point.

Unlike the other three standards, Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle."

Because the Schroth restraint systems would be considered "seat belt assemblies," the systems must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209 before they can be sold.

Installation Prior to First Sale

Because your September 22 letter indicated that the Schroth restraint systems might be installed in addition to existing belt systems, I would like to also discuss such an installation prior to the vehicle's first sale. If a Schroth restraint system was added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Schroth restraint system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 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.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Schroth restraint system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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.

ID: nht94-7.34

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James E. Schlesinger -- Esq., Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388), letter dated 12/23/92 from James E. Schlesinger to Walter K. Myers, and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS.

In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in S109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are "additional sanctiortion on the decklid. Our review of the two designs shows that they are essentially similar, and that the Mazda design comprises, in fact, two adjacent lamps. As it was not our intent to change the earlier interpretation, we confirm that the June 1985 interpretation remains valid, and that the December 1991 letter is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with it.

ID: nht94-7.35

DATE: April 10, 1992

FROM: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc. (ALTECH)

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Larry Nunn (A39; Std. 108; Std. 218; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

LeGrand Systems Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan has contracted Automotive Lighting Technologies Inc. of Southfield, Michigan, to design and develop a helmet lighting system for use by motorcyclists, snowmobilers, moped operators, and other recreational vehicles. LeGrand applied for patent on the lighting system on February 13, 1990.

LeLite, the products assumed name, is intended to improve safety in the industry by increasing rider visibility. Many motorcycle accidents result from poor visibility or failure of other motorists to see motorcyclists in time to react.

The idea is consistent with reasoning for the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp introduced in 1986 to decrease rear end collisions. However, LeLite includes a wrap around rear stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals. (Enclosure)

The electrical system of the unit is accomplished via a three (3) wire cord which snaps into the base of the unit and connects to a simple harness unit mounted at a location of the operator's choosing on the handlebars, fairing, or rear portion of the motorcycle. This supply harness attaches directly into the associated brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal. Since it is wired directly in the motorcycle's existing wiring harness, the LeLite works in perfect harmony with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

Automotive Lighting Technologies is dedicated to excellence in vehicle lighting design and development and to any role it can play in the improvement of vehicle safety. We believe this product has merit and could prove effective in reducing accidents.

ALTech realize that there are no SAE or FMVSS requirements for this lighting system. However, it is our opinion that this system will not interfere with the function of any other lighting component on the vehicle but rather augment their purpose.

Due to size, weight, and heat limitations of mounting such a system on a helmet, it is not practical that the system can be design to meet vehicle standards. Therefore, ALTech will take every precaution insure the integrity of the product. During product development, we will keep you informed of test results on vibration, moisture, dust, heat, corrosion, photometry and any other area determined to be prudent.

ALTech is asking for your comments on any legalities which we should consider and your support in bringing this product to market in a manner that does not conflict any state or federal requirements. But more important, we ask for any comments or ideas that wiless of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable military specifications.

The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c):

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs.

If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.