ID: nht92-2.12

DATE: 11/20/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RON NOIRFALISE -- DIRECTOR OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

TEXT: 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.

ID: nht92-2.13

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN, ESQ. -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-29-92 FROM DONALD G. MCGUIGAN TO KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN (OCC 7774)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1992 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992.

Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states:

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than "park," i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be "inappropriate," because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard.

We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in "park" as a direct result of removing the key.

Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in "park" as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit.

You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key-locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "park" detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is "held short of engaging the 'Park' positioning detent."

We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-2.14

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. LESLIE DOBSON -- OWNER, MCKINNEY VEHICLE SERVICES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-27-92 FROM J. LESLIE DOBSON TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7923); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3-19-91 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO JERRY TASSAN (PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7-1-92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO GENE FOUTS

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992, in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some "Bobtail" trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements.

In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks.

If you have any further questions about the subject of GVWR, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.15

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: O. SCHMIDT -- HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- VISIBILITY AND CONTROLS GROUP, NHTSA

TITLE: REPLACEABILITY OF LIGHT SOURCES OF CENTER HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMPS (CHMSL)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-11-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO O. SCHMIDT (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Since the introduction of CHMSL in 1985 it seems to be state-of-the-art in using non-replaceable light sources for CHMSL, so that in case of a failure the entire unit or the bulb carrier of devices with a number of light sources has to be replaced.

Could you please confirm that the wording of paragraph S 5.1.1.27 in subpara. (a)(5) and (b)(4) does not exclude the practice of using sealed lamps described in para. S 5.1.1.17, which is less expensive, especially in cases where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided.

From our point of view the requirement in S 5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) concerning the simple bulb replacement can be extended to the complete unit or bulb carrier, whatever the design of a CHMSL may be.

Many thanks for your interest.

ID: nht92-2.16

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: L. Schmidt

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to L. Schmidt (A41; Std. 301)

TEXT: I am writing to obtain some information regarding changing engines in cars -- the questions are.

1. Is there any law that forbids replacing a worn out gas engine in a U.S. or foreign automobile with a diesel engine -- like a 6 cylinder Diesel Cummins engine which is in a Dodge pickup truck? (the 3/4 ton type)

2. If there is a law that forbids that -- does it only apply to the zone in a state where emissions tests are yearly required?

Please let me know about this. I was told its possible there is a law on this.

I would assume that the GM Diesel engine passenger cars could have engines switched to other better diesel engines if there was a law against switching the other way.

Please let me know as we would like to know about this.

ID: nht92-2.17

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: John Paul Barber -- Legislative Counsel, American Association of Blood Banks

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-24-93 from John Womack to John Paul Barber (A41; Part 567; Part 571); Also attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (Part 567)

TEXT: This letter is written to request an opinion on whether second stage manufacturers may affix an additional certification label with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. This issue is important in determining if existing stocks of blood mobiles must be classified as commercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The AABB is the professional and scientific organization for individuals and institutions, involved in blood banking and transfusion medicine. AABB member institutions collect virtually all of the nation's volunteer blood supply. Many AABB blood centers operate "blood mobiles" for collecting blood donations away from the blood center.

The AABB advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to blood mobiles have the authority under 47 CFR Sections 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use (see attached.) We have since received a legal opinion asserting that Sections 567 and 568 PRECLUDE affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use.

We recognize that Sections 567 and 568 do not expressly authorize a second stage manufacturer to affix an additional label establishing a new GVWR for vehicles already in use. However, we analyzed the law and determined that a second stage manufacturer is not PROHIBITED from affixing an additional label with a new GVWR to vehicles already in use.

We interpret Section 108 of the National Traffic and Safety Act to render federal motor vehicle regulations that are not safety standards inapplicable to motor vehicles after they are sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. We therefore conclude that since the labeling requirements found in Sections 567 and 568 are not safety standards, second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to blood mobiles already in use.

Please provide us with your opinion regarding whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale. Also, will affixing a new label with an adjusted GVWR have the Chief effect of rendering existing blood mobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

Thank you for your assistance on this issue and I look forward to receiving your response.

Attached to letter dated 9-24-92 from E. Shannon Cooper, MD, President, and Joel M. Solomon, PhD, Executive Director, to AABB Institutional Members "Re: Licensing Requirements Bloodmobile Operators: Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Change Recommended."

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.18

DATE: 11/19/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER - FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM PAUL GOULD TO PAUL RICE DATED 9-1-92 (EST.) (OCC 7792)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a 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. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force -- relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +/-0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.19

DATE: November 19, 1992

FROM: Daniel Cassese

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/5/92 (should be 1/5/93) from Paul Jackson Rice (signed by John Womack) to Daniel Cassese (A40; Std. 201; Std. 202; Std. 208; Std. 302; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Womack in regard to my questions concerning an invention I have and also a U.S. Patent #5, 135, 283.

The idea is called Head-rest (Extension) it would be used in Automobiles and allow a person to sit in more comfort when placed in the "existing" automobile seat. I need to find out whether my invention will comply to Safety Standards #201, 202, and #208. If it does comply, I have a Manufacturer Company, named GOSHEN CUSHIONS, INC. that is willing to manufacture it.

I've included the Patent Drawings and descriptions, please review them. Will this item (Head-Rest Ext.) comply with safety-standards #201, #202, #208?

How can I get approval??

I do NOT have a model (prototype) at this time.

Dear Sir,

Please note that figure #5 the #22 can be made to extend over the top of the existing head-rest. The Head-rest will NOT change the shape or design of the existing one at all. All dimensions are covered within the U.S. Patent.

HENCE: #34 is obsolete. There is no need for this vertical slot as shown because the existing headrest are not made this way. Instead #22 can be EXTENDED over the existing headrest and placed upon the existing headrest and seat.

#42 can be attached to Fig. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, if chosen that way.

Attachment

Information regarding Patent # 5,135,283, Head Rest Extension. (Text and graphics omitted.))

ID: nht92-2.2

DATE: 11/26/92

FROM: NILTON MELLO -- VITROTEC - VIDROS DE SEGURANCA LTDA

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

COPYEE: I.A.T.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-17-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO NILTON MELLO (A40; STD. 205)

TEXT: We have received your letter dated November 13, 1992 that confirm our agent I.A.T. and conforms to your procedural requirements. We have also received on November 25th., 1992 our D.O.T. number (515).

We need to know if with these (DOT 515), we are able to export our laminated windshields and others 1for motor vehicles, or if it is needed by law that we perform tests at the one of the American Laboratoryes, and then clear the process of requirements to export.

We would appreciate a swift answer. Since now we appreciate your help.

ID: nht92-2.20

DATE: November 18, 1992

FROM: Joanna L. Campfield -- Vice President, ULTRA B-O-N-D, INC.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: Windshield Repair

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Joanna L. Campfield (A40; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Our company is a windshield repair system distributor. We have a design patent pending on our equipment and issued patent #5,116,441 for the methods of repairing long cracks in windshields.

Since the development of windshield repair in the 1970's, equipment has upgraded, resins have been made stronger and results have improved. At that time it was the position of the U.S. Department of Transportation that windshield repair was not prohibited either by your Department or Federal law or regulation. Repairs are restricted from any area which may hinder the driver's vision as well as new windshields damaged in shipment, as per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

As more and more insurance companies are favoring repair versus replacement, we would appreciate receiving an updated approval letter from your offices. If there is any information we can supply to you, please contact our office.

Thank you for your assistance.