ID: nht94-1.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: James Ackley -- Region 4 Director; Carol Baumhauer -- Counselor; Krista D. Subler -- Counselor -- Small Business Development Center, Upper Valley JVS Business Development Center

TO: John E. Boehner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A) and letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey

TEXT:

We are writing in reference to clients of the Upper Valley Small Business Development Center in Piqua. Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Lipps are inventors with a patent on a product called Life Lites.

Because this system has the potential to save lives, we request your assistance in guiding Mr. Cail and Mr. Lipps through the color code designation process and any other resource possibilities available.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht94-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 6, 1994

FROM: Littler, C.N. -- Administrator Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries, Manitoba, Canada

TO: Versailles, Mary -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to FMVSS P571@121

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/1/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To C. N. Littler (A42; VSA 103(D))

TEXT: I am writing to request a NHTSA legal opinion regarding New York State enforcement of a brake stopping distance standard which is not identical in nature or substance to FMVSS 121.

In effect, NYSDOT is currently inspecting and placing out of service privately owned motor coaches which do not stop within 22.2 feet and 20 mph. FMVSS 121 requires a stopping distance of 35 feet at 20 mph on a road surface having a skid pad number of 81. Not only is the New York standard not identical to the Federal standard, (as required under the provisions of Sec. 103(d) of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966), it is also unduly restrictive.

Recently, the Bus Association of New York met with members of NYSDOT to attempt to resolve this problem. This meeting unfortunately only resulted in an impasse, whereby NYSDOT requested that the vehicle manufacturers write letters to the NYSDOT Compl iance and Enforcement Branch requesting exemptions to the New York standard.

We do not feel that this approach is appropriate. This issue is not one of a technical nature. It is, in fact, a legislative issue in that New York State is not in compliance with a Federally mandated standard.

Your assistance in providing a legal opinion with respect to this rather urgent matter would be greatly appreciated. I have attached for your reference copies of the standards and statute above named. Please do not hesitate to call me at 204-287-427 4 or FAX 204-453-7356 should you or counsel's office staff required further information. With kindest regards, I remain,

Attachments

(STANDARDS AND STATUTES OMITTED.)

ID: nht94-1.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 7, 1994

FROM: D. E. Dawkins -- Director - Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

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

TITLE: Request for Interpretation Regarding Combined Sun Visor Air Bag Caution Label and Utility Vehicle Label

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to Dale E. Dawkins (A42; Redbook; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation requests that the NHTSA affirm an interpretation of MVSS 208-Occupant Crash Protection, that 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. We believe that the messages of these labels are equally important to the operator of the vehicle, and that they can be effectively displayed together on a common label.

We are aware that General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company have submitted petitions for reconsideration of the final rule of Docket 74-14; Notice 82, which amends MVSS 208, in part, to require the sun visor label containing certain air bag cauti ons. Both companies ask that the agency further amend the air bag visor label requirement to permit the continued location of the utility vehicle label on the visor.

We support those petitions, and ask that the agency grant them and proceed with the proposed amendments. However, we ask that the agency also confirm that the information from both labels may not only appear on the same sun visor, but may be incorporate d into a single label on a given surface of the sun visor. In our opinion, the messages are of equal significance to the safe operation of the vehicle and deserve equal and simultaneous presentation to the driver. If the agency cannot affirm that posit ion within the existing regulation, please consider this request as a petition for rulemaking to that end.

If there are questions about this request, please address them to Howard Willson of my staff at (810) 370-8563.

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein

TO: Kathryn A. Roach -- Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/93 from Kathryn A. Roach to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9344), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208) and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explaine d in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deplo yment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

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: nht94-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have t o contact the various states concerning their laws.

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, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any comm ercial 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.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

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

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see , for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body n or the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a ne w engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lac ks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

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

ID: nht94-1.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Table II Minimum Static; Breaking Energy (inch pounds) D.O.T. 119

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/12/94 from John Womack to Adam A. Freund (A42; Std. 119)

TEXT:

Further to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of subject matter for your perusal. As we had discussed I believe there is a typo in the highlighted columns marked respectively MOTORCYCLE and ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SI ZE. If I am correct the first column MOTORCYCLE should show a plunger diameter of 5/16" and the column marked ALL 12 INCH OR SMALLER RIM SIZE should show a plunger diameter of 3/4".

I would appreciate your qualifying my interpretation of above subject matter. If my interpretation is incorrect, please advise me how the respective columns should be marked.

Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. would greatly appreciate any expedited consideration you may allow us on this request.

ATTACHMENT

(Table omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Dessert -- Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/93 from Richard J. Dessert to NHTSA Administrator (OCC-8731) and letter dated 5/7/93 from John W. Schumann

TEXT:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). T he response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption fro m Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not f orbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Admini strator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that th e Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emi ssion vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standa rd for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general

statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards.: Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we h ave received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain phot ographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicle s after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202) 366-5263).

ID: nht94-1.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Pat Boyd -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Don Vierimaa (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

A customer has requested that a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting be placed along the side of a trailer he is ordering. The manufacturer is reluctant to provide this width of sheeting since the rule states in S5.7.1.3(d) that Grade DOT-C2 sh eeting shall have a width of 50 mm. This provides no tolerance nor does it provide a minimum.

May a manufacturer install 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?

ID: nht94-1.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1994

FROM: Sam Nunn -- Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate

TO: Jackie Lowey -- Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/94 from John Womack to Sam Nunn (A42; Part 571.7, letter dated 12/22/93 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn, and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

I recently received the enclosed inquiry from one of my constituents. Please review the matter thoroughly, in accordance with established policies and procedures, and provide me with a full report.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.