ID: nht90-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI & COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUG. 11, 1989 FROM PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY, TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, ATTACHED, OCC3831

TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards w ould apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and "possibly 302" would apply to this seat.

I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulatio ns.

You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the "occupant compartment air space," which the standard defines as "the sp ace within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the "o ccupant compartment air space" turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area wher e people could and would ride, and would be considered within the "occupant compartment air space." Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistanc e requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repa iring motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicl e with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of this "render inoperative" provision.

Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: VICTOR CRISCI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM VICTOR CRISCI TO ERICA Z. JONES DATED JUNE 28, 1989 ATTACHED

TEXT: This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, 1989.

To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light t o the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.10(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams.

You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S 5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do n ot interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device do es not contain this feature.

We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that sw itches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash

(such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result.

ID: nht90-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/14/90

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

TO: DIANA L. D. REGAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM DIANA L. REGAN ATTACHED; OCC 4152

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the saf ety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below.

Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) 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 al l necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed t o alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Sta ndard No. 209.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR @ 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be a ccomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment

of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213.

You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a Febr uary 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The informa tion sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

ID: nht90-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/90

FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH; REDBOOK A35; VSA 102[5]; PART 575.6

TEXT: This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the recent amendment to NHTSA's Consumer Information regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 575. This amendment, published on November 27, 1989, requires that vehicle Owner's Manuals contain specifie d information regarding NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline.

Section 575.6(a)(2)(i) of the regulations specifies a statement that must appear in Owner's Manuals effective September 1, 1990. In two locations within the statement, the "name of manufacturer" must be inserted. We request your opinion as to whethe r we may, consistent with the regulations, use the name "Infiniti" in these spaces, for manuals used with our new Infiniti line of vehicles.

Infiniti is a Division within Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles will be assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the parent corporation, in Japan. Vehicles sold through the Infinit i Division will be designated by the Infiniti nameplate, and we expect that consumers will identify the vehicles specifically with that name. The process is similar to that used with the Cadillac or Lincoln Divisions of General Motors Corporation or For d Motor Company, respectively.

We would provide an address and telephone number for the Infiniti Division adjacent to the required Hotline information, to facilitate consumers contacting Infiniti. This toll free number would be unique to the Infiniti Division, and calls would be a nswered by a staff separate from that of the Nissan Division. We believe that this approach would not confuse consumers and would, in fact, improve their ability to contact quickly the appropriate officials who are authorized to respond to any questions on defect or compliance matters concerning Infiniti models.

We would greatly appreciate your earliest possible response on this matter, so that we can arrange our printing schedules to meet the September 1 effective date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

ID: nht90-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1990

FROM: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TO: U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO ANTHONY P. GREENISH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; PART 591) TEXT:

I am presently contemplating purchasing a car in Europe and importing it when I return to the United States in July 1990. The two models I have in mind are:

1. The BMW model 324 d Diesel

2. The Honda model Accord 1.6 Ix

Any information you can provide as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards would be very welcome.

ID: nht92-8.17

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael J. Sens (A39; Std. 206; Part 571; Part 567)

TEXT:

By way of this letter, I am seeking an interpretation of FMVSS 206, 214, and 216 as they would pertain to a 1985 Jeep CJ-7. The Jeep CJ-7 was classified (it is no longer in production) by its manufacturer, American Motors Corporation, as a "sport-utility vehicle". The vehicle came with a soft top and a removable fiberglass top option. The side doors are easily removable.

FMVSS 206, "Door Locks and Door Rentention Components," requires at S4. that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." It goes on to say, "However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard". My first question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7's side doors are easily attached and removed by design for operation in a doorless manner, is it exempt from conformity to FMVSS 206?

FMVSS 214, "Side Door Strength," states at S2. that "this standard applies to passenger cars." The 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is defined by its manufacturer as a "sport-utility vehicle." This classification is not that of a "passenger car." My second question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sport-utility vehicle," does FMVSS 214 apply to it?

FMVSS 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars," states at S3. that "This standard applies to passenger cars." After stating that it does not apply to vehicles that conform to the rollover test requirements of S5.3 of standard 208, it continues, "It also does not apply to convertibles." My third question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sports-utility vehicle" and is a convertible, does FMVSS 216 apply to it?

Please find enclosed two views of the type vehicle under discussion. The 1985 CJ-7 shows the soft-top package with the top down and the side doors removed. Unfortunately, I do not have an illustration of the 1985 CJ-7 with the optional hard snap-on top. However, the 1981 CJ-7 model photograph enclosed is typical of how the 1980's CJ-7 line appeared with the optional top.

Thank you in advance for your time and considerations on this issue. If you require additional information, do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

Photos and text pertaining to the 1981 and 1985 CJ-7 vehicles.

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-8.18

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles W. O'Conner -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

COPYEE: Larry Henneberger; Bill Lewandoski; California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/26/91 from Charles W. O'Connor to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6863)

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991, and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this Office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ("Control"). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to "rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning."

We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above.

We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle.

It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purposes other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397(a)(2)(A). This Section states in pertinent part:

"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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A).

We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort on the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statutes and regulations.

On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht92-8.19

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to George F. Reuss (A39; VSA 102 (3))

TEXT:

Reuss Engineers Has received a patent for a propietary vehicle to pick up and transport autombiles. We have produced a practical prototype and are ready to produce commercial models for sale. We are interested in knowing which specific regulations and standards apply.

The complete vehicle consists of a purchased chassis with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. Between the cab and the rear wheels is inserted a structural frame including moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath an automobiles' tires. The forks are raised, carrying the automobile with them, and retracted into the frame work. The vehicle containing the automobile is driven to any destination and the proceedure reversed.

Enclosed are 2 pages of the patent giving a pictorial representation.

We appreciate any help and guidance. Thank yo for your prompt attention.

Attachment

Copy of patent number 5,067,869, dated 11/26/91. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.2

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Danis -- Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. (Quebec)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Charles Danis to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6991)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR S571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure.

The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

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: nht92-8.20

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TO: Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tm Kozy (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have a question regarding the use of adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to a bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative?

On the same subject, I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the airbag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed?

We need to know the answers to these questions from a marketing standpoint, and also because I use hand controls myself.

Thank you for any help you can give us regarding this matter.