ID: nht91-5.27

DATE: August 19, 1991

FROM: Phil Lanam -- Engineer, Ukiah Fire Department

TO: Taylor Vinson -- DOT/OCC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Lanam (A38; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 3-4-80 from Frank Berndt to Joe Cain

TEXT:

I have been referred to you by Engineer Blane Laubis of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

My question to him was in regards to a piece of equipment we just purchased. This piece of equipment is a 1978 F700 Ford truck, 24500 GVW, VIN N75FVB89042. The problem we are having with it is the Eaton anti-skid brake system. Part of the anti-skid system has been removed. In my research, I have found this system was plagued with problems.

We would like to install standard S cam air brakes on this vehicle. I have talked with several agencies and they have made this change. My question to you concerns the legality of this change. I have been told there is a clause in the anti-skid law that allows this on some problem plagued systems.

I would greatly appreciate any information you could give me to help resolve this problem.

ID: nht91-5.28

DATE: August 19, 1991

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation: 1. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Sections S5.3 and S5.4 2. Report No. 217-MSE-90-10-TR0009-10 Bus Window Retention and Release Compliance Test-FMVSS 217 1990 Blue Bird (33 Passenger) 3. NEF-31KNu/NCI 3189 4. NEF-31KNu/NCI-3189.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A38; Std. 217)

TEXT:

A 1990 Blue Bird bus was compliance tested to the requirements of FMVSS 217 as reported in Reference 2. As a result of the test, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) issued NCI letters, including references 3 and 4. Blue Bird Body company responded as requested to reference 3 and requested and attended a technical meeting on July 2, 1991 in Washington, D.C. in response to reference 4. As a result of this activity, there is one issue that needs to be formally resolved before NCI 3189 can be closed. The following paragraphs discuss the issue, provide the OVSC position, provide the Blue Bird Body Company position and request an interpretation of which position is correct according to Standard No. 217.

49 CFR Part 571.217-Sections S5.3.2 and S5.4.1

Discussion:

Section S5.3.2 provides two force application options for options for emergency exit release mechanisms. Option (a) LOW FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of motion as "Rotary or straight", and magnitude as "Not more than 20 pounds." Option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of notion as "Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.", and magnitude as "Not more than 60 pounds." Section S5.4.1 establishes emergency exit extension reach distances and force levels based on Section S5.3.2.

OVSC Position:

As stated in Reference 4, the OVSC position is: "In this case the release handle is pin jointed at the top much like a piano hinge. The only possible movement the handle can experience is to rotate around the pin joint. The release mechanism neither slides nor translates, IT VERY CLEARLY ROTATES. The video that Blue Bird supplied this office shows that the handle rotates during the release of the window. An occupant of the bus would then have to apply a force in a rotary notion to operate the release mechanism. The maximum release should therefore be 20 lbs."

Blue Bird Body Company Position:

Blue Bird Body Company agrees with the OVSC that the release mechanism of the pushout window design used by Blue Bird is rotary; however, it is our understanding that Standard 217 regulates the "type of motion" of the FORCE APPLICATION used to manually operate the release mechanism and does not regulate the "type of motion" of the RELEASE MECHANISM itself. Blue Bird Body Company disagrees with the OVSC that an occupant would have to use a rotary motion to operate the mechanism. The introduction of the book The Way Things Work by David Macaulay supports Blue Bird's position by stating:

MOVEMENT AND FORCE Many mechanical machines exist to convert one form of movement into another. This movement may be in a straight line (in which case it is often backward-and-forward, as in the shuttling of a piston-rod) or it may be in a circle. Many machines convert linear movement into circular or rotary movement and vice versa, often because the power source driving the machine moves in one way and the machine in another.

But whether direction is altered or not, the mechanical parts move to change the force applied into one-either larger or smaller-that is appropriate for the task to be tackled. (1)

---------- (1) David Macaulay, Houghton Mifflin Company, The Way Things Work, Copyright 1988, ISBN 0-395-42857-2

The essence of our argument and position is the principal that a straight linear force can be used to operate a rotary mechanism. A weight put on a lever arm and used to lift an object against the force of gravity is an example of this principle. The straight linear force of gravity acting on the weight is the only application force acting on the lever arm. The lever arm's reaction to this force will be rotary motion and will involve other motions and forces; however, the application force of gravity, since it acts only in a direction toward the center of the earth, remains straight and linear. As another example, a latch string, extending through the latch string hole of a door, can be pulled straight out and perpendicular to the surface of door to activate the latch bar and allow opening of the door. Note that in this example, the latch bar pivots or rotates in a different plane and direction from the application force.

Since the pushout window release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout windows is in the high force application region and is releasable by a single occupant, operating one mechanism, using one force application that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, we must be allowed the use of option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION and, therefore, are allowed a magnitude of 60 pounds.

The report, reference 2, determined the type of motion of release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout window to be rotary and, therefore, determined the required force application to 20 pounds maximum. It determined the type of motion for extension of the pushout window to be

straight and perpendicular and, therefore, allowed a 60 pound application force. The pushout windows are hinged at the top and must swing out (rotate) to open. In a nearly identical way, the release mechanism is hinged at the top and must swing in (rotate) to unlatch. The only difference, from a principle of mechanics viewpoint, is the length of the lever arm from the hinge to the point of force application. For the latch mechanism, the lever arm is short and the motion appears rotary. For the pushout window, the lever arm is long, and the motion appears linear in reality, both motions are rotary but both can be actuated by straight linear force applications. The discrepancy and inconsistency in applying different requirements to mechanisms that operate in the same manner must be resolved and the resolution must be based on established principles of mechanics.

Request for Interpretation:

Blue Bird Body Company requests confirmation that the requirements of reference 1, with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not to the release mechanisms being activated by the forces. Further, we request confirmation of our understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary notion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism. Blue Bird's desire that our pushout rectangular transit window design be allowed the use of Section S5.3.2 (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION of 60 pounds is consistent with both the letter of FMVSS 217 and the intent of the standard. We believe the requirements as written, acknowledge the limitations in typical human physical capabilities. When rotary motion (involving gripping and forearm rotation) is required to operate a release mechanism (such as rotating a common door knob) the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Similarly, if reach distances for straight motion are such that body and arm extension are required to reach the mechanism, the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Hence in these cases, the "Access Region for Low Forces" and LOW FORCE APPLICATION are required. When a push or pull force is required and the reach distances are small, as is the case with the Blue Bird pushout transit window latch, a human being can easily exert higher forces and the "Access Region for High Forces" and HIGH FORCE APPLICATION are allowed. If NHTSA believes that it is more appropriate for pushout windows to operate within the Low force application requirements, such a change should be implemented through Rulemaking Action and not by interpretations made in Compliance Test Procedures.

Blue Bird Body Company requests that thoughtful and timely responses to the above requests for interpretation be provided so that NCI 3189 can be satisfactorily resolved and closed in the best interests of motor vehicle safety.

If additional information or further discussion will assist in timely resolution of the issues involved, we will be glad to visit NHTSA to provide whatever information or assistance possible.

ID: nht91-5.29

DATE: August 20, 1991 EST

FROM: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jt Covelli (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Recently a woman in the creative department of my advertising agency saw a decal placed on the third brake light of a car in Illinois. The decal's backround was clear and in black bold letters was the name of the auto dealer. The letters appear only when the brake light is on and are only visible from a short distance.

I have been advised by the Wisconsin D.O.T. that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the third brake light. Is there a federal law allowing the use of a clear decal in this manner?

My agency has a client we would like to present the idea to. We respectfully request your legal opinion in this matter. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please feel free to call me with questions at 608 274-9906. I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht91-5.3

DATE: July 19, 1991

FROM: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries

TO: Rick Iderstiene -- NHTSA

TITLE: Safety Standard #211

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Charles Lombard (A38; Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney

TEXT:

Please send me a letter of your approval to market my new wheel and/or hubcap design at your earliest convenience.

I have worked hard and am fighting cancer. I've put in nine years in the making of this product with safety always in mind. I have worked with General Motors and Ford Motor Company for 40 years in general management positions, always making everything to be safe and clean. I have 40 years with a perfect record. I've received many awards.

The design will be a little deeper and inwards. The TIRE will ALWAYS HIT THE CURB FIRST. It's one piece and has nothing to do with holding the wheel, or rather the design has nothing to do with holding the wheel on the car or truck. It just has a sparkle affect and will keep the wheel cooler, eliminating brake fade (a good safety factor).

As you can see, the wheel will still be held on by 4, 5 or 6 lug nuts. You can see we threw weeds, cloth and other debris directly into it, and the design will not catch it. It is DEFINITELY NOT a true knock-off with sharp ends. The pictures enclosed will show a better idea of how it is held on. It is definitely stronger and much more safe than anything that the auto factories are building today.

Enclosed are some pictures of many other makes and models. Much of mine will be molded and poured in appearance only (strong and safe). The lug nuts and the outer edge of the hub are safe and much more leaning toward the safety factor than many that are on the market today. I have many factory awards for marketing all types of vehicles.

We found by throwing cloths or debris into the wire wheels of today, they will catch more than any other design and will break the spokes. The knock-off hubs and prongs I know have been outlawed many years ago. My wheel and hubcaps were studied by the marketing professosr and students of the University of Arizona three years ago. Compared to some market studies, my design was much stronger and safe, and the wheel made of steel and chrome NEVER has to be retourqued like aluminum.

I hope I pass your specifications and endorsement. Thank you so much.

Attached to drawings of wheel rims and hub caps. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-5.30

DATE: August 23, 1991

FROM: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TO: Jerry Medelin -- NHTSA

TITLE: Telephone conversation 8/20/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jon Nisper (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our telephone conversation please refer to the attached sheet showing a proposed headlamp / turnsignal assembly.

In each case, where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position? The reflector being considered is an advanced variable focus highbeam / lowbeam utilizing a 9007 bulb. In both cases the inboard wall serves no functional pupose. And in fact, the inboard wall could be blackened with no loss of performance.

Thank you for your opinion. If you feel that this situation warrants it, I will follow this telefax up with a formal letter for official judgement.

Attachment

Diagram of the proposed headlamp/turnsignal assembly. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-5.31

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Steinhagen -- Custom Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-91 from Thomas R. Steinhagen to Dee Fujita (OCC 6298)

TEXT:

This responds to your August 1, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my off asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade sold at retail, the end consumer.

As Ms. Fujita informed you in a July 31, 1991 telephone conversation, generally speaking, the answer is no. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard 107)--and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as replacement wiper arms and blades. Thus, replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not meet Standard 107.

However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed on a vehicle a wiper arm and blade that did not meet the specular gloss requirements of Standard 107, it would be rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard 107. Violations of S108 of the Safety Act are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition to the above, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are 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. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-5.32

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Dept., KIA Motors Corp.

TO: Andrew J. Sklover -- Special Assistant to the Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to D. G. Kong (A38; Std. 216, Part 567)

TEXT:

We are pleased to get to give our best regards to you this time since your visit to our company last year.

Since then, we are trying to do our best for developing our future models suitable for American market in accordance with the guidance of NHTSA.

For the lack of information on USA safety certification, we are in need of your help for the followings: (A) FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance for Convertibles : According to S3(c) of FMVSS 216 Roof Crush Resistance, convertible vehicles are exempted from application for this rule, we understood. We'd like to know the clear & detailed definition of convertibles. Let's make an example for your reference. The soft roofline of ISUZU Amigo (Sports Utility Vehicle) is composed of half hard top with steel and half soft top with plastic or special cloth. Is it called by convertible in connection with application of FMVSS 216 requirements effective September 1, 1993? (Soft top can be detachable in use.)

(B) Submitting reports to NHTSA and state governments: In relation to USA Safety certification, there are lots of laws & regulations of federal/state goverments, we know. What regulations in addition to FMVSS do we should follow (expecially in state regulations) and what reporting (such as, Bumper-Indiana and VIN Reporting-NHTSA) do we have to submit when we proceed USA Safety Certifiction? We'd like know the relationship of laws and regulations between federal states.

We're wondering if you are in charge of these queries or not, but you are kindly requested to deliver the message to the man in charge.

We'll do endeavor to keep up with the line of NHTSA to improve the safety of motor vehicles and at last wish you and your family every happiness.

ID: nht91-5.33

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry/Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation for 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S.4.2.5.6.2 and 49 CFR Part 585; Ref: W-491-H

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-28-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A38; Std. 208; Part 585)

TEXT:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., with specific authority from Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan ("Nissan"), formally requests interpretation regarding the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, "Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by more than one manufacturer" and 49 CFR Part 585, "Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements".

Nissan intends to produce a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) in a joint program with another automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "Company A") beginning in the 1992 calender year. Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide an interpretation regarding the applicability of the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S4.2.5.6.2, and 49 CFR Part 585.5(c)(3)(i) with regards to calculations of percentages of vehicles within its composite fleet for the purposes of complying with the passive restraint phase-in requirements set forth in FMVSS 208, as recently amended to include light duty trucks and MPV classified vehicles.

Company A will assemble the MPV in a domestic (U.S.) assembly plant. Nissan has undertaken the majority of design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components to Company A for the purposes of assembly. Nissan believes that this activity meets the substantive requirements such that Nissan may be considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Nissan and Company A have mutually agreed upon the terms of a supplemental exhibit to the governing Design and Development contract that stipulates that Company A is the "manufacturer of the vehicle and will inscribe its name on the certification label." Additionally, the contract supplemental exhibit apportions among the two automakers the responsibility for defect investigations, safety noncompliances and statutory mandated submissions to the NHTSA.

Upon mutual consent by both manufacturers, company A will count Company A badged vehicles in its total fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages, while Nissan will count Nissan badged vehicles in its composite fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages. A separate document that acknowledges this agreement will be prepared and ratified by representatives of both Company A and Nissan.

Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide Nissan with an interpretation to the following issues:

1) Is Nissan considered a "Manufacturer", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, of the jointly produced MPV?

2) Can Nissan use the Nissan badged vehicles in its calculations in demonstrating compliance regarding the phase-in schedule for the passive restraint devices as amended for light trucks and MPV in FMVSS 208?

Please inform Nissan Research & Development, Inc. of your interpretation regarding these features at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any questions or require further information regarding this request for interpretation or related matters, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht89-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

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

TO: RUSSELL STORMS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM HARRY B. SKINNER -- DOT TO RUSSELL A. STORMS; LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM RUSSELL A STORMS TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Storms:

This responds to your letter asking that this Department "approve" or otherwise "recognize" your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral r eflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this author ity to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @571.125; copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate c ommerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the r equirements of that standard.

You are not required to get some "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of th e Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must cer tify that it conforms to all applicable standards.

Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you careful ly examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configurati on, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that:

each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide.

Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requiremen ts in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $ 800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their pro ducts if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

If you have aay 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.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1989

FROM: LINDA L. CONRAD -- NIVES FORD, INC.

TO: STEVEN WOOD -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 1, 1990 TO LINDA L. CONRAD, NIVES FORD, INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397(A)(2)(A); STD. 208; VSA 108(A)(1)(A); 108(A)(2)(A); 108(B)(1)]

TEXT: We took in on trade a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron that had an air bag.

This vehicle was in an accident and the bag has been used.

We would like to know if there is any law that says we must replace this bag before we sell this car.

We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.

Have a great day!