ID: nht94-1.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TO: Associate Administrator for Enforcement -- NHTSA

TITLE: Motorcycle Projector Beam Headlamps Interpretation of FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/94 from John Womack to Jeffrey D. Shetler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. is hereby requesting a interpretation from NHTSA regarding the application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle and its compliance with FMVSS 571.108.

When reviewing FMVSS 108 we are not sure if our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle will meet the specified requirements. Your response regarding the following questions would be greatly appreciated:

1. Table IV of FMVSS 108 specifies that if two (headlamps) are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.

Attached is a layout drawing which provides a general description of our proposed application of a projector beam headlamp. Our headlamp is not completely aligned symmetrically because the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side. However, the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline.

Question: Is our headlamp in compliance with the provision stated above?

2. Section S5.1.1.23 of FMVSS 108 indicates that instead of the headlamps specified by Table III, a motorcycle may be equipped with one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamp shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable.

Question: Does this requirement mean our proposed projector beam shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7? Or, is our proposed layout in the attachmen t acceptable?

Thank you in advance for your timely response to our questions. If further information is required, I can be reached at (714) 770-0400 ext. 2456.

ID: nht94-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Sam Nunn -- Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated January 11, 1994 from Sam Nunn to Jackie Lowey, letter dated 12/22/94 from Bill Lee to Sam Nunn and letter dated 12/17/93 from Tim Adamson to Bill Lee

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 11, 1994, to the Acting Director of Congressional Affairs, DOT, with respect to an inquiry from Georgia State Representative Bill Lee regarding the disposition of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold direct ly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature , thus the matter is not the subject of any DOT-administered statute or of any NHTSA regulations. From time to time the Department of Defense (DOD) asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery o f Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine wh ether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for Representative Lee.

ID: nht94-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1994

FROM: Ilmars Ozols

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/6/94 From John Womack To Ilmars Ozols (A42; VSA 5104(4)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

As a result of my telephone conversation with one of your associates on February 1, 1994, I am communicating with you and would like to request your assistance to determine if SERV-O-TRAY is in compliance with existing National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration relevant codes and regulations with regards to after market product installation in a motor vehicle.

SERV-O-TRAY is a patented folding/adjustable table for vehicles intended to provide comfort for drivers and front seat passengers whether the vehicle is stationary or movement mode.

For your information I am enclosing a photograph of SERV-O-TRAY prototype installation in a motor vehicle and SERV-O-TRAY's technical description which hopefully will assist you in your task.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, or telephone (619) 327-8290.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-1.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Maurice Hannigan -- Commissioner, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from P. J. Harrington to Potter Valley Community Unified School Dist. Superintendent and letter dated 3/31/93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke

TEXT:

It has come to our attention that a misunderstanding has arisen about a letter we issued on March 31, 1993 to W.C. Burke of your Department. That letter explained the marking responsibilities of a person who installs replacement glass (referred to as gl azing in the Federal standard) under section S6.4 of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205, copy enclosed.) On January 12, 1994, Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Ma rvin Shaw of my staff contacted Mr. Walter Burke and Mr. Kyle Larson of CHP to discuss this matter. This letter is a follow up to that discussion.

Based on its understanding of the March 1993 letter, CHP is requiring installers to mark replacement glazing with a number (which the agency refers to as a manufacturer's code mark) and has directed school districts to tell installers of glass to contact NHTSA "(t)o obtain a number as required by (Standard No. 205)." Standard No. 205 does not require the typical aftermarket installer to obtain such a number from the agency.

We explained in the March 1993 letter that a person who cuts glazing (i.e., a typical installer of aftermarket glazing) must mark the piece with the following information required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "Amer ican National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designa tion or trademark.

Mr. Larson stated that he was under the impression that "(3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer" was a number assigned by NHTSA. As we explained to him, this is not the case. The installer devises his own model number. The only number assigne d by NHTSA under Standard No. 205 is the code mark assigned to a manufacturer who "fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material" (known as a "prime glazing material manufacturer").

We hope that this clarifies our earlier letter on this subject. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 9, 1994

FROM: James H. Shuff -- President, Freedom Trailers

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to James H. Shuff (A42; STD 120; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: I was advised by Mr. George Shifflet of the D.O.T. to contact you and request a ruling on the Park Model Travel Trailers that I am building.

I am custom building park model travel trailers. These units, by ANSI code 119.5, are limited to a maximum of 400 sq, ft. There are park models that are recognized by H.U.D. but they are 500sq. ft. They are intended for recreational use only and no t for year round living. These units can be used in the same manner as conventional travel trailers for winter camping in the year round parks. These units can be as wide as 12'.

The units that I am building are to order only. Once they are constructed they will be towed to their campsite and set up. The tires and the rims will be retained by me and used over again. Mr. Shifflet did not seem to think that there would be a p roblem with this, but suggested that I contact you for an opinion.

ID: nht94-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Denise Davis

TO: Whom It May Concern

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from John Womack to Denise Davis (Std. 205)

TEXT: To Whom it May Concern:

I was pulled over recently for the tinting in my car windows. I was told to have it checked and I would be issued a sticker for my window if the windows complied with the law.

I've been to the Window Tinting Store and was told they would not issue me a sticker because my windows were only allowing 20% sunlight through and the NEW law wants 35% sunlight through.

I'm therefore under the impression that I should have my tinting removed, which would be no problem if it were to be replaced by the proper tint at the same time as the removal took place. I was informed that I would have to cover this expense.

I paid approximately $ 450.00 to have my windows tinted seven years ago when I purchased my car. I don't have a problem with the Georgia Law. I am, however, unemployed and do not feel I should have to cover an expense for a law that came into being aft er my car was tinted unless the State of Georgia has funds set aside to replace the tinting in my car with the proper shade of tint.

If I had recently had my windows tinted in the wrong strength, I would gladly remove it because I would have been in error in the first place for having it done incorrectly and unlawfully. At the time my windows were tinted I was not breaking any law an d I don't feel I should be put to an additional expense to conform to a law put into effect at a later date.

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-1.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Shapiro -- RV Designer Collection, Woodbridge, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/17/93 from David Shapiro to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9358)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials to aftermarket products. You state that you are planning to market fabric window coverings such as drapes and fabric bedding such as bedspreads for use in recreational vehicles. In response to your request for confirmation that Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket products, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. The agency periodically tests new vehicles an d items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the products you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. However, Standard No. 302 would not apply to your products because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor ve hicle equipment.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your products. Under the Safety Act, your products are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle e quipment, you are subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that even though Standard No. 302 would not apply t o your product, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any vehi cle or item of motor vehicle

equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from installing your product in used vehicles if the effect of such installation was to render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 302.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle o wners, your products would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/15/93 from Pat McCue to Ed Jettner (OCC-8962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Ed Jettner of this agency concerning an occupant restraint system you have developed to protect medics and attendants in the back of ambulances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The system consists of a vest worn by the attendant which is attached by a tether strap to the ambulance. During an August 23, 1993 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the tether straps include retractors which lock during a crash. During this phone call you also stated that the back vest can be attached to two tethers on the vehicle wall adjacent to the bench seat, and that the front of the vest is attached to another tether on the opposite wall. You asked for advice on " how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act pr ohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approv e 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish three safety standards that may be relevant to a vest and tether system for ambulance attendants. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protect ion at the various seating positions in vehicles. Ambulances, which are classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles under our regulations, are required to have safety belts at each designated seating position. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, including ambulances. The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies.

Standards No. 208 and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, is responsible for certifying com pliance to these standards.

Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

Standard No. 209 defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardwa re designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." Thus, your vest and tether system would be considered a "seat belt assembly," and the manufacturer of the system would be required to certify that it complies with Standard No. 209 before it could be sold.

If the vest and tether system was installed as original equipment by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable safety standards with that equipment installed in the vehic le. If the device was added to a new ambulance prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle c ontinues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, you stated that your ambulances do have safety belts on the bench seat, however, these do not provide the mobility needed by the attendants when they are caring for a patient. It is our underst anding that you intend the vest and tether system to supplement the original safety belts. If your vest and tether system were installed in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208, and provided that the installation did not interfere w ith the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That sect ion provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing your system if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in your system did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would render inoperative compliance with that standard. The render inoperative provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such m odification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. However, this agency encourages vehicle owners not to make any modifications which would negatively affect the occupant

protection systems installed in their vehicles. Also, vehicle modifications by owners may be regulated by state law.

In addition to certifying that your vest and tether system complies with Standard No. 209, I urge you to exercise care in evaluating how effective this system would be in an actual crash situation. The original belt system supplied with the vehicle limi ts the motion of the occupant by keeping the occupant attached to the seat. Your system would have a dual purpose: allowing the attendant sufficient mobility to care for a patient and protecting the attendant in a crash. The tether on your system will not achieve this second purpose if it allows too much motion within the compartment.

You may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business. I also note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair wo rk.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

ID: nht94-1.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson: Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards