ID: nht94-4.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body And Equipment Co.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO R. C. ROST (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Council:

In 1988 we wrote you asking for relief from installing roof lights on non yellow buses used for Head Start. You denied our request and I thought this battle was over, but it is not.

Again we are in between federal law and states rights. As you can see from the attached information Minnesota has passed a law stating a Head Start bus shall be non yellow, be lettered Head Start but cannot be equipped with flashing lights or a stop arm . This in direct conflict with your letter of 8/26/88.

We feel it should be up to you and the State of Minnesota to work this out. As sellers of buses and manufacturer's of buses we should not be placed in the middle of this type situation.

We have no feeling on this one way or another. We only ask for clarification as to our ability to sell this type of unit and your authorization for our bus manufacturers to legally build this type of bus for Head Start.

We request that you direct any correspondence not only to us but to Major Gramse who directs the inspection program for buses in the State of Minnesota.

Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

We would appreciate your speedy response as this law takes effect very soon.

Attached letter:

11/8/94 Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

RE: Buses used for Minnesota Head Starts after 12/31/94

Dear Mr. Gramse:

It is our understanding that Head Starts may choose from two different types of buses.

1. A yellow and black bus that meets all Minnesota standards for school bus and has an "MN" in the serial number certifying it meets Minnesota standards as well as federal standards.

2. A non yellow bus lettered Head Start with no roof warning lights and no stop arm, but with an "MN" in the serial number certifying it to meet all "school bus standards and Head Start bus bodies by law". This statement would include federal standards by law.

We have no problem with item 1, above yellow buses, it is item 2 non yellow buses that causes a problem. Attached you will find a letter for Chief Council for the U.S. Department of Transportation discussing the federal requirement for roof lights and t his also covers the 1992 federal requirement for a stop arm on a school bus, whether yellow or non yellow. We request an Attorney Generals opinion on this part of the Minnesota Head Start law and a hold harmless agreement from the state agreeing to defe nd any school bus seller who delivers a non federal standard bus into Minnesota that meets state but not federal standards. The hold harmless agreement should cover any cash awards whether federal, state of civil arising from any injuries due to omittio n of federal requirements on a Head Start bus.

Since federal law requires that we must deliver a non yellow school bus with lights and stop arm to the end user and they remove the lights and stop arm, we request the same hold harmless agreement for Head Starts as for bus sellers.

Since we must deliver the bus with lights and stop arms we request a hold harmless agreement from the State regarding the "MN" certifications false signing.

It is our feeling that in the event of a child's injury on any non yellow Head Start bus where the lights and stop arm have been removed that the person removing or disconnecting or ordering the items not to be used would be subject to civil and federal litigation and liability.

The letter from the Department of Transportation has been supplied to the Minnesota Department of School Transportation, The Highway Patrol Inspectors and the Department of Public Safety.

We request a speedy resolution to this matter and immediate notification to Head Starts and bus sellers.

R. C. Rost -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO.

P.S. It is our feeling that activation of the 4 way hazard lights while loading or unloading Head Start children in no way alerts traffic that children are loading or unloading and does not give them the protection they are entitled to.

ID: nht94-4.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 11, 1994

FROM: Barbara Kise

TO: Chief Consul

TITLE: Air bag in 1994 automobile

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Barbara Kise (A43; Std. 208; VSA 108 (9)(2)(A))

TEXT: Sir:

On July 27, 1994 I purchased a 1994 Oldsmobile with an air bag installed I am concerned about the powder that is ejected as a result of an accident.

I am a COPD patient and am on oxygen for this disease. I wonder if the air bag could be disconnected and just rely on my sear belts for safety purposes? With my emphysema and chronic bronchitis, I don't think my lungs could tolerate the residue from th e air bag. I would be willing to sign papers releasing everyone from responsibility of disconnecting the air bag

Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you could help me with this problem. Thank you for your cooperation

Sincerely,

Ms. Barbara Kise

ID: nht94-4.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

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

TO: Vincent Ugoletti -- Chief Engineer, Great Lakes Communications, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/7/94 FROM VINCENT A. UGOLETTI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10335)

TEXT: This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter to this office in which you stated your intention to modify a "conversion" van into a "production" van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conv ersation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial veh icle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new ve hicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requir ements of those standards when the new van was sold to you.

The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Th e standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles su ch as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assemb ly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs.

Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to th eir vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements.

There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of des ign installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standar ds listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it insta lls are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards.

You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

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

ID: nht94-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 23, 1994

FROM: Earl L. Hartley, Jr. -- Ryan Freight Services, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Ed Glancy

TITLE: Reference: Briggs & Stratton Corporation Compliance with 49 CFR Part 583

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Earl L. Hartley, Jr. (A43; Part 583)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Pursuant to my recent conversation with Mr. Glancy, I am sending this letter to list some questions we have concerning the requirements of Part 583 and the proper way comply with these regulations.

We are in the process of supplying country of origin information to the auto manufacturers we sell to and would like to have confirmation that we are properly interpreting the regulations. Therefore, we request that you respond to our questions at your earliest convenience.

583.6(c) - We interpret this to mean that if the U.S./Canada value added is 70% or more we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be 100%. If the U.S./Canada value added is less than 70% we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be -0-%. Is t his correct?

583.7(a)/583.7(e)/583.7(f) - If the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value is -0-% then we should report the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% each. Is this correct?

583.7(c)(1) - This requirement is completely independent from the determination of the percentage of the value determination. Therefore it is possible for a part to be of U.S.A. origin and have -0-% U.S./Canadian Percentage of Value. Are we correct in t his assumption?

583.10(a)-(c) - from these parts we assume the following requirements: Our certificate must show:

1. The name and address of the supplier,

2. The part number and description of the part or assembly,

3. The selling price to our customer,

4. Whether the part has or does not have 70% percent of its value from the United States/Canada as determined under 583.6(c),

5. If the United States/Canada percentage is less than 70% the country of origin determined under 583.7(c), 6. For equipment that may be used in an engine or transmission, the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.8(c),

7. A certification for the information, pursuant to 583.13 and the date of the certification, and,

8. One certificate can cover multiple parts and assemblies.

If the United States/Canada percentage of the value added is -0- percent, should we show the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% on our certificate? This information does not seem to be required by 583.10(a).

583.13 - This section requires us to certify the information provided on our certificate to be in accordance with DOT regulations. Please provide us with a copy of these DOT regulations or advise where we can secure a copy of these regulations so we can know the regulations to which we are subscribing.

583.10 (c) (1) - (2) - We can issue our certificate for the calendar year from January 1, through December 31 of each year.

We ask that you review the assumptions we are making based on our interpretations of these regulations and advise us if you feel we are correct or what we need to do to correct any errors we have made. We look forward to hearing from you in the near fut ure.

Thank you for you assistance and cooperation in handling this matter.

Sincerely:

Earl L. Hartley Jr. Atty-in-fact

ID: nht94-4.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

FROM: Dona B. Mann -- Fastrac Ideas, Inc.

TO: Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Dona B. Mann (A43; Std. 209)

TEXT: Dear Chief Consul;

Per my conversation with Ed Jettner on 11-8-94, I am enclosing a sample of the Koze Kover seat belt holder and pictures of how it is used.

The Koze Kover seat belt holder will hold the descending shoulder strap away from the jugular area of the neck. It is made from a tri-laminate material of polyester Kodel, 1/4 inch foam and urethane coated pack cloth. It is fastened by hook and loop cl osure.

I believe the Koze Kover seat belt holder will meet the standards of safety set by the N.H.T.S.A. as there are no hard components to become a projectile during a collision.

The Koze Kover seat belt holder will maintain the integrity of the seat belt and hold the person securely in place at all times.

Sincerely yours,

Dona B. Mann R.N., C.E.T.N.

ID: nht94-4.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 15, 1994

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

TO: Clay F. West -- Garvey, Schubert & Barer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/1/94 FROM CLAY F. WEST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994, requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a "windshield cleaning device." As your letter describes, "(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile . The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively."

I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 15, 1994

FROM: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, NgvFuel Tanks, Structural Composites Industries

TO: Marvin Shaw -- U.S. Dept. Of Transportation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE ANTHONY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 303)

TEXT: I have been referred to you by Mr. Gary Woodford of NHTSA. Structural Composites Industries, (SCI) is a manufacturer of compressed natural gas fuel tanks for Detroit OEM's and other OEM transit bus manufacturers. We are also the oldest and largest comm ercial composite tank manufacturer in the world. Some of our customers have requested new tank models to be introduced on vehicles in January and February 1995, which is one to two months before the March 27, 1995 effective date of FMVSS 304. These cust omers wish to reference a qualification standard on the label. Our problem is that footnote 8 on the bottom of page 49020 of the 9/26/94 Federal Register clearly states that until March 27, 1995, the effective date of FMVSS 304, "cylinder manufacturers may not certify compliance with it". Yet on the same Federal Register page, the manufacturers are "free to advertise containers as meeting the CNG equipment standard." What language can we use?

Possible examples:

1. "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS 304 effective March 27, 1995."

2. "DOT effective March 27, 1995."

We would very much appreciate your counsel.

ID: nht94-4.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1994

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

TO: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/25/94 FROM MATT DECKER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: We have received your letter of October 25, 1994, petitioning for exemption from S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which establishes conspicuity requirements for large trailers.

Your letter states that Wenger Corporation "manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment" including "Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form." The reason for your request is that "[the] additio n of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product."

The agency's exemption authority is prescribed by statute, and has been implemented by a regulation, 49 CFR Part 555, a copy of which I enclose. Your letter does not contain the information needed for an exemption petition. There appear to be two bases upon which Wenger could apply for an exemption, under the hardship provisions of Sec. 555.6(a) and the safety level provisions of Sec. 555.6(d). If Wenger submits an application that contains the information required by Part 555, we shall give the matt er further consideration. The desire of manufacturers to use retroreflective logos as a substitute for conspicuity marking was considered in the rulemaking proceedings that established S5.7 but was not adopted because the agency saw greater safety benef its in adopting a standardized pattern.

We have studied the photo in your product literature that shows the trailer ready for performance. It would appear that the upper rear conspicuity treatment is not visible to an audience when the trailer is open. Noting that Wenger provides an optional skirt for the platform, we see that the skirt hides the lower side and rear conspicuity treatment required by S5.7. We believe that the simplest solution is to provide the skirt as standard equipment with the trailer.

ID: nht94-4.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1994

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Patrick Boyd -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 7% haze requirement for reflectors (Docket No. 93-15; Notice 2)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We have a question about the applicability of the above requirement for reflex reflector materials.

According to the Final Rule issued by the Federal Register of November 2, the amended haze requirement shall be effective on November 1, 1995. Our question is that if this requirement shall be applicable to replacement reflex reflectors or not.

For replacement reflex reflectors, two possible cases are in problem. Would you please inform us if the amended haze requirement shall be applicable in each case.

First case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date.

Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effectiv e date continuously.)

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 18, 1994

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P. E., Automotive Engineering, Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO HARRY GOUGH (A43; STD. 217); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 AND 3/28/94 LETTERS FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the phrase "outlined around it's outside perimeter" as used in FMVSS # 217 S5.5.3, Subsection( c). The term is used in regard to retroreflective tape required to identify emergency exits on school buses. The reason for the request is that a State requirement on the color of school buses requires the rear bumper to be black. One school bus manuf acturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of retroreflective tape required for the rear emergency exit installed on the rear bumper. While discussing options regarding relocation of the bottom piece of tape we were told that installation on the botto m of the door itself (not the opening) was not viable since it would not comply with FMVSS # 217 language. Subsequently a number of new school buses from a different manufacturer which were required to have their emergency exits marked were noted to hav e the tape on the door itself rather than on the edges of the opening.

When the door itself is outlined, the tape is not visible when the door is fully opened. When the edges of the opening for the door are outlined then only the hinge side of the tape is not visible. If only the bottom section of the door outline were on the door itself then both the bottom and hinge side would not be visible when the door is opened.

The ultimate question is; Does the language in FMVSS # 217 allow the required retroreflective tape marking around an emergency exit door to be installed on the door itself?

While I realize your office very busy with such interpretations. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-8754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.