ID: nht94-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, Advanced Design Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/5/94 FROM BRUCE MONNIE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10253)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehic le's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requiremen ts for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type I I seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restr aint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. n1 In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be re sponsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its in stallation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the c onsumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, suc h as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

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

ID: nht94-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Lois Castillo -- President, Travel Tray, Inc.

TO: Joan Womack -- NHTSA; John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip Recht to Lois Castillo (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Joan Womack:

My name is Lois Castillo. I represent a new company called Travel Tray, Inc. based in Utah. Our tray fits across children's carseats and is easily attached and removed. I have enclosed one of our brochures that describes our tray.

I need your help in obtaining any information you might have regarding safety regulations pertaining to a tray such as this.

We are in preparation to start manufacturing and have been advised to seek information from your department first. I have spoken with Craig Allred, Director of the State of Utah Division of Highway Safety and showed him my tray. He felt the tray was okay, but suggested that I should apply a disclaimer clause and warning that the tray should not be used as part of the safety apparatus. That it is only to be used as a convenience item - like a toy - for the child. My patent attorney also suggested thi s.

Please let me know what you think and any information you might have regarding this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Enclosure

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TO: Taylor Vinson, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN E. GETZ (REDBOOK (2)); PART 571.7

TEXT: We are in the custom trailer manufacturing business. Most often we purchase new trailers and finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers or trailers for specific electronic functions (see enclosed Brochure). In suc h cases our new trailer product is subject to all of the latest DOT regulations. However, in other cases we start with a used trailer and change its finishing and equipment for a new application. For example, we recently took an old (1985) vintage trai ler, stripped the inside, and refinished it for a major computer company to use as a mobile marketing facility. In this case the running gear did not change nor did the Vehicle Identification number. However, ownership did change which raised the questi on of "Newly Manufactured" as addressed in @ 571.7 "Applicability" (copy enclosed). Telephone discussions with Patrick Boyd and Ken Hardy in Vehicle Safety indicate preliminarily that this is not a newly manufactured trailer because the basic trailer st ructure did not change. However in some cases we may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application.

What we are requesting is an interpretation as to whether we would fall in the category of a newly manufactured trailer if the running gear. VIN, and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does. In the example above we did add conspicuity treatment, not because it was thought to be legally required (although we did want to protect the company prior your interpretation), but mainly from a liability and safety standpoint in the event of an accident and subsequent litigation. If you have any questions regarding this request please call me at (513) 752-9000 ext. 208. Thanking you in advance. I am

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

RICHARD P. BOWLING

PRESIDENT

FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

Date: October 18, 1994

Number of pages including this sheet: 1

From: Don Vierimaa

To: John Getz, 1-513-943-3395 TITLE 49 - TRAILERS

@ 671.7 Applicability.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in Subpart B of this part applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirement s of this chapter, and the Act, unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

ID: nht94-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Frank Lautenberg -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/26/94 FROM FRANK LAUTENBERG TO SUSAN SLYE

TEXT: We are responding to your further correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Mark L. Bauman of Marlton, which was addressed to the Federal Highway Administration. On July 28, 1994, the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) wrote you about Dr. Bauman's courtesy light. I believe that letter fairly states NHTSA's views on the process the government generally follows for mandating items of safety equipment. This letter will explain what Dr. Bauman may n ow do if he wishes to sell his invention as an item of optional motor vehicle lighting equipment, without the necessity of Federal involvement.

Dr. Bauman's light would be mounted in the front of a vehicle so that its driver, stopped at an intersection, can advise pedestrians or other drivers to proceed with caution. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and As sociated Equipment governs the installation of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles. Since Standard No. 108 does not require a front courtesy light, the light is considered supplementary lighting equipment, one for which no standards have been estab lished. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require, in this instance, the other lighting equipment on the vehicle's front, specifically park ing lamps, turn signal lamps, and headlamps (paragraph S5.1.3, Standard No. 108). The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify upon the vehicle's completion that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to certification of a vehicle on which the courtesy light has been installed, a manufacturer would be certifying under S5.1.3 that the light does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. NHTSA will not question the certification un less it appears to be clearly erroneous. Thus, any tests that Dr. Bauman may conduct with the courtesy light should address the basic issue of impairment. A dealer in motor vehicles must not negatively affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification. Thus, if a dealership installs the courtesy light, it should ensure that there is no impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3 before offering the vehicle for sale and selling it. Our regulations make a distinction between modifications to new vehicles an d those that have been sold, but similar considerations apply. If a dealership installs the courtesy light on a used car, it must ensure that it does not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment (49 U.S.C. 30122). We have interpreted t his, where possible, to be the equivalent of the "impairment" prohibition applicable to new vehicles. This prohibition applies to manufacturers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses as well.

However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. If Dr. Bauman intends his courtesy light solely for the aftermarket and the device is such that it would ordinarily be installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of its use is determined b y the laws of the States in which it is operated. We are unable to advise Dr. Bauman on whether the laws of the individual States would permit use of his invention, and recommend that he write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle A dministrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope that this responds to Dr. Bauman's concerns.

ID: nht94-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Donald T. Hoy -- Senior Marketing Manager, Clean Air Partners

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DONALD T. HOY (REDBOOK 2; PART 303)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to obtain written confirmation on the issue of converting a school bus to run on a blended fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel. During my conversation this morning with Mr. John Wo mack, I outlined our intention to convert school busses to run on a blended fuel of natural gas and diesel in Seattle, Washington. We fully intend to market this product in other states as well.

Basically, the Clean Air Partners, Inc. (CAP) CARB certified conversion system is designed to bolt on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) diesel engine. The diesel fuel system remains intact and operates as designed during the duty cycle of the eng ine. Our conversion, during the dual fuel cycle, simply reduces the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its' place. Should your on board supply of natural gas be depleated, the system automatically reverts back to 100% diese l with no interruption in driveability.

With this brief description of our conversion system in mind, I would like to ask a few questions:

1. Are there any Federal Regulations preventing the conversation of a school bus from diesel to a "dual fuel" school bus?

2. With regard to vehicle certification, is there any significance as to when the conversion is installed on any school bus?

ID: nht94-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment Dated 5/31/94: Letter From Jerry Miller to Chief Console

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 31, 1994, requesting confirmation that "there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other than school buses."

You are correct that Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices, applies only to school buses. However, while none of the safety standar ds apply to wheelchair securement devices for vehicles other than wheelchairs, the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-3 0121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

You should also be aware that the Department of Transportation has issued a final rule implementing the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices installed i n vehicles required to be accessible by this rule. A copy of the final rule is enclosed with this letter. If you have further questions on these regulations, please contact Mr. Irv Chor of the Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Chor's card is attached to the final rule.

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

Enclosure

ID: nht94-4.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- MD, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD J. KINSEY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 583

TEXT: Ford Motor Company requests your concurrence on the following procedure for defining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components.

40 CFR 583.6(c)(4)(iv) assigns zero domestic content to all passenger motor vehicle equipment which is imported into the territorial boundaries of the United States or Canada from a third country, even if part of its material originated in the United States or Canada. 40 CFR 583.7 allows the supplier to use methodologies that are used for customs purposes to determine the country of origin. Ford expects that for any imported component, both allied and outside, suppliers would report that the domest ic content is zero and the country of origin is the country of manufacture, based on the rules of substantial transformation.

Ford can obtain the same information (zero domestic content, country of manufacture, purchase price) expected to be received from our foreign suppliers from our present purchasing systems. Since the process of soliciting the supplier is costly, Ford plans to assign the domestic content and country of origin of the foreign supplied components without soliciting the data from our foreign suppliers. We are concerned that even if Ford did submit the request to foreign suppliers, that suppliers would ha ve to expend additional resources creating a document which Ford already knows the answer. Even if the foreign supplier does not respond, the domestic content and country of origin will not be any different than if they did respond. Ford believes that requiring these suppliers to respond would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on our foreign suppliers.

Ford will solicit content information from all first-tier outside suppliers of non-minor parts starting for the 1996 model year calculation.

Please contact Ron Peltier at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.

Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: Clay F. West -- Garvey, Schubert and Barer

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/15/94 (EST) FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO CLAY F. WEST (REDBOOK 2; STD. 104)

TEXT: Last week I called the Research & Special Programs Administration, Rulemaking Department to inquire about the existence of any regulations or standards that might apply to a product which is termed a windshield cleaning device. The product is a clear st rip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.

As I discussed the device with Rich Eiderstein (I have probably misspelled his name), he was reminded of another individual who brought in a similar device and also asked about the existence of any applicable regulations or standards. Mr. Eiderstein inf ormed me that, by writing to you, I could receive a copy of the written analysis prepared by his office with respect to applicable rules and standards.

I appreciate any assistance that you are able to provide.

ID: nht94-4.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: James D. Murphy, Jr.

TO: Recht

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to James D. Murphy, Jr. (A43; Part 571.3(b)); Also attached to 6/11/86 letter from Erika Jones to Terry W. Wager

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am designing a vehicle that I hope to certify as a U.S. street-legal motorcycle.

As you can see in the drawing, it actually has 4 wheels, but since the left and right side wheels are elevated off the ground, no more than 2 wheels touch the ground at any one time. There are some rare circumstances where all 4 wheels could touch th e ground at the same time, for an instant, but these require precise undulations in the surface of the road. I would imagine that NHTSA defines "ground" as a flat surface (otherwise, a headlamp might exceed NHTSA's upper height limit when cresting a bum p, or drop below NHTSA's lower height limit when traversing a pothole, etc.).

Therefore, I hope that this vehicle will still comply with NHTSA's definition of a "motorcycle". I await your reply.

Sincerely,

James D. Murphy Jr.

P.S. You can call me at home at (303) 350-9449; any time. Be sure to ask for James Jr.

(Drawing omitted.)