ID: 10-01396_Bruno_drn.doc

ID: 10000

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. The answer to both of your questions is VW is still required to mark the replacement parts in question.

In your letter, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years 1990 through 1994. For model year 1995, NHTSA granted an exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. Your first question asks whether replacement parts for the Corrado line are exempted from the parts marking requirements of part 541.

The answer is no. Section 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that are the subject of the grant, and are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. You inform us that the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the U.S. in MY 1995. If the Corrado will not be offered for sale in this country, then no Corrrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved antitheft device. If no Corrado is so equipped, the part 543 exemption would not apply to the Corrado line. Thus, Volkswagen would be required to continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, offered for sale in the U.S.

In your letter, you cited an October 12, 1989 NHTSA interpretation letter to Saab-Scania of America to support your position that the Corrado's replacement parts need not continue to be marked. We do not believe that the letter to Saab supports your position.

Saab received an exemption from parts marking for the Saab 9000 for the 1989 model year, and asked NHTSA to clarify the scope of the part 543 exemption. On page two of the letter to Saab, NHTSA stated that Saab was free to discontinue marking of original equipment and replacement parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the part 543 exemption took effect, "provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition..." The letter to Saab establishes that if it does not install the antitheft device on the exempted line, a manufacturer is not free to discontinue marking replacement parts on the line.

Your second question was whether replacement parts marking may be terminated at some point after a high theft line subject to parts marking, is no longer produced. The answer is no. This issue was addressed in the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (50 FR 43166, October 25, 1985):

Once a line is selected as a high theft line, each covered major replacement part designed for use on that line must be identified as a replacement part. That requirement remains in effect as long as those replacement parts are produced. (50 FR 43178).

Thus, as long as replacement parts are produced for a high theft line subject to parts marking, the replacement parts must continue to be marked.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541#543 d:7/1/94

ID: 10006

Mr. Paul L. Anderson
President
Van-Con Inc.
P.O. Box 237
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ...

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/8/94

ID: 10008

Ms. Eileen Jones
17 Ballinger Court
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your faxed letter of May 19, 1994. As you explained in your letter:

My three month old son has a physical condition whereby the formula that he drinks refluxes back into his throat causing him to choke and become unable to breathe. Due to this condition, I cannot keep his infant seat in the back of the car where I will be unable to reach him and thus prevent him from choking.

My problem lies in that I have a passenger as well as a driver's side air bag in our 1993 Ford Taurus Wagon. Due to the danger of having an infant's seat in the front of a car with a passenger air bag, I have contacted local Ford dealers as well as the overall Ford customer service people and have been told each time that they will not disable my car air bags for me as it is against federal law.

You requested "a waiver of a portion of the federal guidelines regarding air bags in automobiles."

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement.

The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the act under Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides that--

(n)o 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.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger- side air bag in your car in the same way. Based on the results of recent agency research, NHTSA has concluded that rear-facing infant restraints should not be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. NHTSA would consider the special medical needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the air bag to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "render inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, our willingness to permit this deactivation is conditioned on the reactivation of the air bag by the dealer as soon as your son can use a forward-facing child restraint. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that other passengers in this seating position use their safety belts while the air bag is disconnected.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:6/13/94

ID: 10024

Mr. John A. Griffiths
510G Bellfield Drive
Newport News, VA 23602

Dear Mr. Griffiths:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specify for a manual transmission vehicle, a "neutral safety switch," or other means to prevent starting of the vehicle unless the clutch is fully depressed. The answer is no.

Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, specifies starter interlocks for automatic transmission vehicles, but not for manual transmission vehicles. (See S3.1.3.) None of the other safety standards specify that motor vehicles include a device of the type you describe, or specify means to prevent starting of a manual transmission vehicle unless the clutch is depressed.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102 d:6/8/94

ID: 10032

Mr. Larry Wessels
President
Rocky Mountain Technology Engineering Corporation
P.O. Box 280307
Lakewood, CO 80228-0307

Dear Mr. Wessels:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation about the use of your product, the "Handi-Slide." You state that your invention is a locking system for securing and releasing a sliding semitrailer undercarriage. You further state that the system is tied into the trailer's air brake system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your product is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product that is subject to an FMVSS is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

NHTSA does not have any specific FMVSS for semitrailer undercarriages. However, since the Handi-Slide is tied to a

vehicle's air brake system, your product could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, and specifies performance and equipment requirements for the braking systems on these vehicles. Your product could also affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for the air brake hoses, fittings and assemblies on the vehicle.

If the Handi-Slide is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 121 and 106. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies 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 Handi-Slide were installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires the installer not to knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles.

I note that you provide an attachment titled "Current NHTSA Locking Pin Safety Concerns" that references several Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Please note that these regulations are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), not NHTSA. If you are interested in the FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet.

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

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121#106 d:7/6/94

ID: 10035

Ms. Doris Hull
Owner
Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.
Route 2, Box 2291
Sikeston, MO 63801

Dear Ms. Hull:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#120 d:8/12/94

ID: 10036

George W. Sudenga, Esq.
Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow
118 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1180
Marshalltown, IA 50158-1180

Dear Mr. Sudenga:

This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your request for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, the agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self- certify his product.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:106 d:7/1/94

ID: 10049

Mr. Eric T. Stewart
Engineering Manager
Mid Bus Inc.
3555 St. Johns Road
P.O. Box 1985
Lima, OH 45801-1985

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, asking whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can "be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217," Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms).

During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus.

Non-School Bus

The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non- school buses to have "unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus." That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each exit to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the

unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

School Bus

The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states "(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus." All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emergency exits are required, the area of "daylight opening" of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required.

The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the "size of the available front service door opening" (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the "daylight opening" of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front service door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door.

If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order:

1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window);

2) emergency roof exit;

3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits.

Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/14/94

ID: 10050

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your petition for rulemaking dated May 31, 1994. Your petition concerns the following requirement in S5.3.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release:

In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to open.

A similar requirement is included in S5.3.3.3 for emergency roof exits.

Your petition states:

The requirement for two force applications to open a single release mechanism is new and unproven and in our opinion is not in the best interest of safety.

NHTSA agrees that the sentence in question is susceptible to the reading you gave it. So read, this sentence imposes a requirement not intended by the agency. To avoid such unintended readings, the agency should have worded the sentence as follows:

In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open.

The agency will issue a corrective notice in the future to make this change. Until the notice is issued, we will not take enforcement action against a manufacturer so long as a window or roof exit with one release mechanism requires two force applications to open the exit.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/13/94