ID: nht93-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/93 from Lanny Kness to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR S571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR S 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.)

Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light."

For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility:

(1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101.

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

ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: nht93-5.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from Michael Love to Mary Versailles (OCC 8506)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR S571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. "For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria." You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation:

When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a "plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female." Therefore, these positions would be considered "designated seating positions" at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed.

Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific "designated seating position" when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test

conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a "designated seating position" for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a "designated seating position" was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances.

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: nht93-5.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September 1970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III.

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht93-5.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/93 from John Womack to Michael F. Hecker (A41; Std. 222; Part 571; VSA 108(A)(2)(a)

TEXT:

I have reviewed the letter sent to our Mr. Michael H. Dunn on January 29, 1993 and as a result, I am providing the following response.

We fully understand that NHTSA neither approves, or certifies, products such as the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System. We are very careful to explain this to customers when we are asked if the agency has approved the device.

In regards to Micho Industries certification of compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, there appears to be some confusion as a result of past correspondence with your office. While we understand that there are no standards directly applicable to lap bar restraints, it was our understanding that once the R-BAR was mounted to the seat it was part of the seat and subject to the requirements of the seat. This was re-emphasized in a letter from your office (to Micho Industries) on May 14, 1992 when Mr. Paul Rice stated "once the restraining bar is attached to the seat back, it is part of the seat back. Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4 (c).".

In the same letter Mr. Rice further states that "Manufacturers are required to certify that vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure."

Previous correspondence from your office has stated that "the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard."

Based on our understanding of the regulations and past correspondence with your office, we have developed the R-BAR so that it was in compliance to regulations that apply to the seat as well as other regulations that apply to the general safety of the school bus. Further, it has been our understanding that, as the manufacturer, it was our responsibility to "certify" that compliance on installations in existing buses.

John, we do not want to mislead anyone or misrepresent the product, our company or your agency. After 8 years of development and testing we believe the R-BAR will stand on its own merits. If, after consideration of the above, it remains the position of your agency that Micho Industries stating "certification of the R-BAR to compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" would be possibly misleading - then we

will of course refrain from making that statement. In the meantime Micho Industries, and it's representatives, will respond to customer inquiries, regarding compliance, with the following statements;

At this time there are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are directly applicable to the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System.

Properly installed the R-BAR will not violate any regulation or standard, or make inoperative any existing safety device or feature of the bus in which it is installed.

I look forward to your comments and thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: 7930

Mr. Kenneth W. Webster II
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center Inc.
East Liberty, OH 43319-0367

Dear Mr. Webster:

This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 F. to +125 F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 F to -40 F. during the test or for any portion of the 12- hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 for purposes of conducting the test.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:124 d.12/24/92

ID: 7935

The Honorable Connie Mack
United States Senate
1342 Colonial Boulevard, Suite 27
Fort Myers, FL 33907

Dear Senator Mack:

Thank you for your letter of December 12, 1994, addressed to the Intergovernmental & Consumer Affairs office of this Department. You forwarded to us a letter from your constituent, Mr. Howard J. Levy, Vice- President, Used Tire International, of Deerfield Beach, Florida.

Mr. Levy expressed concern in his letters to you and this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about a proposed bill in the Puerto Rico Senate which would require that used tires imported into Puerto Rico have not less than 5/32 inch tread depth and which would impose a tax of $10 per tire on such imports. Mr. Levy is concerned that the proposed bill would mean the end of the used tire industry on the island. In his letter to this agency, he asked, "Does NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Puerto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety," and requested our help in this matter.

We have carefully evaluated Mr. Levy's concerns. As discussed in our enclosed response to Mr. Levy, however, we have concluded that the laws and regulations that we administer will not be of help to him. Since our opinion is limited to consideration of the laws and regulations that we administer, we have suggested to Mr. Levy that he may wish to consult a private attorney concerning whether the proposed Puerto Rico bill raises other legal issues that are relevant to his concerns.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:109 d:1/17/95

ID: 7964

Form DOT F 1320.65 (Rev. 5/83)
Supersedes previous editionOFFICIAL FILE COPYCONCURRENCESRTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE
RTG SYMBOL
INITIALS/SIG
DATE

Mr. Ron Noirfalise Director of Pupil Transportation Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Post Office Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480

Dear Mr. Noirfalise:

This follows up your telephone conversation of November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly- effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people.

As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:11/20/92

ID: 7968

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that NHTSA determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Porsche 911 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The change is proposed to be made on only one model in the 911 line and to be effective beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1990 Porsche 911 car line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking. Subsequently, by letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency concluded that proposed changes to the antitheft device in the MY 1991 Porsche 911 car line were de minimis changes. The primary change for the 1991 model year was that the interior light control units were to be integrated with the alarm control unit and central locking system. The latter two components were already integrated.

For the following reasons, NHTSA concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device for the 1994 model year is not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the anti-theft system on which the exemption was originally based. Under the original system, locking one door would automatically lock all doors, as well as arm the alarm system. Under the proposed change, locking one door with the key would no longer automatically lock all doors, but would still arm the alarm system.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Nor does the change involve adding a feature making an exempted antitheft device even more effective. The change in question lessens the likelihood that all doors of a car will be locked, thus easing a thief's access to the passenger compartment. A thief may easily open the unlocked door, providing an opportunity to attempt to shut off the alarm system (since both the alarm control unit and the power lines from the battery to the alarm system are inside the vehicle) and to circumvent the engine disabling system. If the thief successfully overcomes these systems, theft of the entire vehicle or its parts is facilitated.

Once inside the vehicle, a thief may open the hood by a release in the vehicle interior, thereby gaining access to the storage space under the hood. Since the battery for the Porsche 911 is also located in the front hood compartment of the vehicle, access to the battery also makes it easier for a thief to attempt to shut off the alarm system and engine disabling system, again facilitating theft of the entire vehicle or its parts.

Because the same aspects of performance (i.e., the central door locking system that automatically locked all doors, making access to the vehicle interior and hood release more difficult), are not provided in the proposed device, resulting in the possibility of the vehicle's increased vulnerability to being stolen in whole, or to have its parts stolen, this agency concludes that Porsche's proposed modification to the antitheft device in one model in the MY 1994 911 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Porsche wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 911 car line, it must formally file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for a modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

Since the modification planned by Porsche would result in one model within the car line lacking a feature found on the anti- theft systems of other models, the agency would determine in the following manner whether the car line continued to merit exemption. It would regard the system of the one model as the system of the car line as a whole and assess whether that system would be as effective in preventing theft as parts marking. The additional feature on the other models within the car line, i.e., the central locking system, would be regarded as an addition to the standard equipment system and would not have any bearing upon the exemptability of the car line. NHTSA notes that this same approach would not be taken if the system to be installed on a single model within a car line could not be regarded as a stripped down version of the system on the other models. In that case, there would be no standard equipment version of the system and the car line would not be eligible for an exemption.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Chief, Motor Vehicle Theft Division, Office of Market Incentives, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-1740.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d.12/1/92