ID: nht95-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: Phyllis Armstrong -- General Sales Manager, Saturn of Puyallup (Washington)

TO: Phillip Reckt, Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Phone Conference Evonne Ropell and Dick Morris

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Phyllis Armstrong (A43; Part 580); Also attached to 7/20/89 letter from Kathleen DeMeter to B.L. Swank

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reckt:

On May 17th, 1995, I called Nancy Kelly, Administrator of Department of Licensing for the State of Washington, regarding the towing mileage on the Saturn. As you may or may not be aware, the mileage on the Saturn does not register as the car is being to wed. Only driven miles record on the odometer. Nancy Kelly said she would investigate by having her office communicate with the National Highway Traffic Safety Association in Washington, D.C. and have a definitive answer for me today.

I soon received a phone call from Evonne Ropell, Nancy Kelly's assistant, who had just completed a phone conference with Dick Morris. Evonne said that the NHTSA was well aware that Saturns did not record towed miles, and that the actual miles driven are what is to be recorded on the odometer statements. For example if a Saturn is towed and reflects 10,000 miles on the odometer, then the odometer statement should show 10,000.

I am requesting a letter confirming these findings, as it is crucial information in our daily business affairs. It is terrific to have an agency that is readily available and supportive.

ID: nht95-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1995

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JANE L. DAWSON (A43; STD. 217; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers,

Please provide an interpretation on the following:

In the final rule for FMVSS 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release published in the Federal Register May 9, 1995, what are the location requirements (fore and aft) for emergency windows which may now be used as the first additional eme rgency exit?

Your quick response is appreciated.

ID: nht95-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1995

FROM: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JIM BURGESS (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meyers:

Per our conversation earlier today, I am writing to learn your interpretation of 49CFR, 571.206, S4, as it pertains to our vehicles.

As we discussed, for eight (8) years, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc., has been converting Chrysler minivans, and recently Ford minivans, into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp in the passenger side rear sliding door area. We have crash tested these converted vehicles at OTRC in Ohio for FMVSS 571.208 Frontal Impact, and for FMVSS 571.301 Rear Impact and Side Impact, to gain certification.

In regard to 49CFR, 571.206, S4, our interpretation is that side doors on motor vehicles which are equipped with wheelchair lifts, and linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment or an alar m audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard, pertains to our converted vehicles. We believe the wheelchair ramp we employ serves the same function as a wheelchair lift, in that it provides those per sons in wheelchairs or access to the vehicle, and thus we do not have to conform to this standard.

Because we have had inquiries from customers on this issue, your written interpretation to our inquiry will be appreciated.

ENCLOSURE

June 16, 1995

Dear Mr. Meyers:

As per our telephone conversation this morning, I am sending the enclosed brochures on our current offerings. As I stated, we are working on converting the new 1996 Chrysler NS minivans. We are scheduled for crash testing this vehicle the latter part o f July and offer it for sale in mid-August.

If you have any further questions before ruling on our request of May 18, 1995, regarding interpretation of 49 CFR, 571.206, S4, please call me.

Sincerely,

INDEPENDENT MOBILITY SYSTEMS, INC.

Jim Burgess Engineer

Enclosure: RAMPVAN BROCHURE/PHOTOS OMITTED

ID: nht95-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Don Bearden -- Director, Governmental Affairs

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DON BEARDEN (A43; PART 581)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Subaru of America, Inc. is considering the use of an optional rear bumper-mounted spare tire carrier on a future vehicle as shown on the attached sketch. All trim levels of this vehicle would be offered both with and without the optional rear spare t ire carrier. (For vehicles without the optional external carrier, the spare tire would be carried inside the vehicle). At this time, we can only estimate the sales appeal of this option, but project that it will be specified for far less than 50% of th e car line.

The bumper test conditions contained in 49 CFR @ 581.6(5) specify that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." (Emphasis added.)

Since the Subaru optional spare tire carrier would be mounted to the bumper beam and face bar, we understand that the tire and carrier would be removed from the vehicle prior to the conducting of the Part 581 bumper test.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation.

Thank you for your assistance. Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (609) 488-8644

Enclosure

Rear spare tire carrier

without equipment with equipment

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary J Gazich -- Owner - Clever Kids, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/23/95 LETTER FROM MARY J. GAZICH TO PHILLIP RECHT (OCC 10327)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gazich:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "Smart Rider." In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a "new automobile accessory for children." It is a vinyl seat back protector that sli ps over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands.

The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider.

As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifyin g purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards.

Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among oth er things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that sta ndard. If the vinyl of the Smart Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deepl y as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the S mart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back.

Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider in stalled complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b ) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if t he installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual vehicle owners may mak e to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted.

I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free t o contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yvonne Roppel -- Liaison Officer, Title and Registration Services, State of Washington, Department of Licensing

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/27/95 LETTER FROM YVONNE ROPPEL TO PHILLIP RECKT (OCC 10223)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Roppel:

This is in response to your letter of March 27, 1995, in which you requested a written confirmation of the response by Dick Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), to your telephone inquir y concerning the Federal odometer disclosure law.

You asked whether the lessor or the lessee is the proper person to sign the original title application and odometer disclosure in a state such as Washington, which shows the lessee as the registered owner on the title and requires the lessee to sign the title application at the dealership. You also noted that in most cases the yearly license renewal is mailed to the lessee, and that the registered owner or lessee is liable in any legal action involving the vehicle.

Mr. Morse's response, that the lessee is the person who is responsible for acknowledging receipt of the odometer disclosure when the lessee is considered by the state to be the registered owner of the vehicle, is correct.

If you have any further questions about the Federal odometer disclosure law, please write to this office at the above address, or call Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

ID: nht95-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1995

FROM: Charles Tucker

TO: Gayle D. Dairymple, Safety Standard Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/1/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO CHARLES TUCKER (A43; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gayle D. Dairymple,

I asked the company that is making the modifications to my van, Fitzpatrick Enterprises, and they said I need to get a letter from you stating they are allowed to replace the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel with out an air bag. The EGB II with the ASTECH steering wheel is the only way I will be able to drive.

Steve Manson, from Fitzpatrick Enterprises, Columbus, Ohio, asked me to write you and ask for permission to have my van modified with a smaller ASTECH steering wheel which does not have an airbag. Because my Range-Of-Motion (ROM) is limited from Mult iple Sclerosis, the smaller steering wheel improves my ability to drive safely.

Because RSC is doing the modification and the RSC policy is that, "all vehicles they modify must have an air bag", I will have to pay for the small steering wheel without an airbag. Fitzpatrick needs your written permission to install the steering wh eel that is best and safest for me, but doesn't come with an air bag. With the standard size steering wheel that came on the van, I have to move my arm too much for me to steer, and although "it's" a perfectly good steering wheel, it's too awkward for m e and isn't safe for me to drive with anymore.

The people in Ohio connected with my case, who can verify my need for a smaller steering wheel, and who have evaluated me, and have stated and written to me, that I will be a safe driver with the ASTECH steering wheel are: 1. Bob Farrell - at RSC ins pected my van and made recommendations, 2. Terrie Jones - at RSC is my counselor, 3. Dan Cox - at OSU did the clinical evaluation and the driver evaluation, 4. Dr. Kotil Rammohan & Dr. Joanne Lynn - at OSU Hospital are my doctors. A complete list wit h more names and addresses on page two.

IN CONCLUSION, I AM ASKING YOU FOR A LETTER THAT STATES:

FITZPATRICK ENTERPRISES IS ALLOWED TO MODIFY MY VAN, WITHOUT PUTTING IN AN AIRBAG.

Please call me if there is any other information about my [Illegible Words] you need and I can supply you with. I will be very happy to do whatever I can as it [Illegible Words] years since I've had a vehicle I can drive.

Attachment Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission:

Jim Mc Pherson, Zanesville Office Manager

Terrie Jones, Counselor

Rehabilitation Services Commission

Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation

601 Underwood Street, Suite D

Zanesville, OH 43701-43715

Telephone: (614) 453-0673

Fax: 452-8449

Bob Farrell - 708-256-2417

The Ohio State University Hospitals:

Dan Cox, B. S.

Program Manager / Driver Rehab Services

Ohio State University Hospitals

410 West 10th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43210-1228

Telephone: (614) 293-3833

The Van Equipment Assessment from OSU - 02/26/94

1.) EGB II with a EGB Ortho Tri Pin. 2.) Astech Steering Wheel with Air Bag. 3.) Spinner Knob placed at 3:00 o'clock. 4.) Upper Chest Support. 5.) Replace carpet with non-skid resistance surface in driving and cargo areas. 6.) 10 Hours of Behind-The-Wheel training to start with. 7.) A Clear Windshield. 8.) Client will have an Invacare 9000 Electric Wheelchair.

The company doing the Modifications is: Fitzpatrick Enterprises, Columbus, Ohio Telephone No: 800-545-1102 Ask for Steve Manson Fax: 614-497-1863 1993

My van: Ford E-150 Van

Ohio License Plate No: MPC790

Serial No: 1FDEE14N1PHA21756

ID: nht95-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donnell W. Morrison

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM DONNELL W. MORRISON TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Morrison:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995, asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles.

As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." You speak of having seen "semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level" including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determinatio n unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1995

FROM: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede E Stabilimenti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for legal interpretation, FMVSS 205.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GIUSEPPE DI VITO (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Siv hereby request an interpretation for the testing of a Glass-Plastic glazing item 15A, FMVSS 205. We respectfully request the NHTSA's response at the soonest possible date.

PURPOSE

We ask by this letter for your interpretation involving testing of glazing item AS 15A, Glass Plastic (Annealed Glass-Plastic for use in all position in a Vehicle except for Windshield). We request an interpretation of whether or not test no.5 (bake ANSI Z.26.1-1977) may substitute test no. 4 (boil, ANSI Z26.1-1977) for certification of compliance of that glazing.

BACKGROUND

BMW requested our company to develop a security glazing made of:

1. Door glass: Glass - Polyurethane - Polycarbonate, as per enclosed sketch no. 1. 2. Rear Quarterlite: Glass - Polyvinylbutirale, as per enclosed sketch no. 2.

Both these glass plastic parts have an internal safety spall shield to protect occupants against facial injuries coming form glass particles when the side window is broken or in case of accident. This product meets all the ECE R 43 compliance tests, whi ch include a 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) bake test. The product meets all the applicable test of FMVSS 205 except test n degrees 4 (boil test), which is not compatible with adhesion of the internal spall shield.

This type of glazing will be installed on a limited number of 1996 BMW cars to be sold in Europe and USA. BMW and SIV believe that this spall shield is an important safety innovation, whose absence would not allow introduction of these side windows into the USA.

We expect your urgent answer and thank you in advance.

Attachment Bar graphs - security glazing (omitted).