ID: nht95-7.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/15/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES HOLMES TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11084)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle . . . [and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 established certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Enclosure (COPY OF REGULATION IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht95-7.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Bob Clement -- Member of Congress

TO: The Honorable Richardo Martinez, M.D. -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/14/95 Letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bob Clement (VSA 11316; A43; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

I recently received the attached information from my constituent, Mr. Dale Allen Pommer, regarding the regulations governing a third seat belt in the back seat. According to Mr. Pommer, federal rules prohibit a third seat belt from being installed in his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a response so that I might properly reply to my constituent's inquiry.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jay Hansen of my staff at (202) 225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. I look forward to hearing from you.

Attachment

Representative Bob Clement U.S. House of Representatives 2229 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 205-20515-4205

Representative Clement:

I am writing to you regarding my automobile and safety regulations. We recently had a new baby and I want to put a third seat belt in the back of my 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. I keep getting told that no one will do it because of safety laws. This strikes me as absurd! What is more dangerous? A post-factory-installed seat belt or no seat belt at all? Or two kids in one seat belt? My wife's Hyundai Excel which is considerably smaller than my Blazer has three seat belts in the rear. So my tiny foreign-made car is safe for five, but my much larger, American-made Blazer is not. Is that the conclusion?

I would like to know what, if anything you know about the safety laws and whether or not there is anything that can be done in a case like mine. I sure as Hell can't afford a new truck and don't want to get rid of mine anyway. I would also like to be able to put my whole family in it.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Dale Allen Pommer Nashville, TN 615/262-9736

ID: nht95-7.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/12/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Tom Byrne (Redbook (2); Std. 106)

TEXT: Goodridge (UK) Ltd. has been awarded approval/certification for its Brakelines by the TUV Manheim, Germany. The test procedures and requirements were those of FMVSS 106. We are therefore now able to offer Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines that are legal for Street and Highway use in Europe and we believe the United States. We have completed the necessary paperwork and have filed for a USA DOT Manufacturers number.

In order to avoid any possible confusion or irregularity, can you please confirm: * an independent laboratory certification that the line meets the requirements of FMVSS 106 is valid for the United States. * that such a brakeline can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper (for example, where pipe thread has been used). * are there any special marking requirements for the United States? We are required to tag with our manufacturers name, type of assembly and date of manufacture.

I am submitting to you a copy of our TUV Certificate and an English translation. This is confidential material and I ask that you please give it confidential treatment. I thank you for your consideration of my request and look forward to your timely response. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 452-1664.

ID: nht95-7.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Ken Van Sciver -- President, Sciver Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Ken Van Sciver (A43; Std. 206; VSA 102)

TEXT: Safety Administration:

The Sciver Corporation has developed a new product, the Auto Bib, hereafter known as product. We have already began the development and marketing of this new product. The reason for this letter is to familiarize ourselves to any local, state, or governing agency with regards to the consumers safety standards if applicable with this product.

After speaking with Walter Meyers in one of your departments, he suggested we submit drawings and describe our product to the New Product Safety Committee for review. We have enclosed a promotional sheet that gives detailed instructions of it's uses and installation of this product. The intentions of this product are to provide the consumer a way of protecting their vehicle's door from the abuse caused by their small pets, the sun, and children.

If you could please forward any information and findings at your earliest convenience it will be appreciated.

Enclosures: product description product installation instructions

(Enclosures omitted.)

ID: nht95-7.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Guy Dorleans -- International Regulatory Affairs Manager Valeo

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/29/95 letter from Guy Dorleans to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your letter of September 29, 1995, with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to fulfill the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108.

You have enclosed a design for a lamp incorporating tail, stop, and rear turn signal functions, the illumination for which will be provided by red LEDs. At night, the LEDs will provide sufficient illumination to meet taillamp photometrics, with increased illumination when the brake pedal is applied, "so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled." When the turn signal is activated, "all the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal (and) the sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled. . . ." You ask for "confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct."

We consider this lamp, as you have more fully described it in your letter, to be an acceptable design for meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipemnt, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co.

TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/18/95 letter from Yoshiaki Matsui to NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 1995, describing a combination tail, stop, and rear turn signal lamp which incorporates incandescent bulbs to perform assigned functions, and which contains light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a compartment along the outboard side.

With respect to red LEDs adjacent to the tail and stop lamp, you state that the lamp is designed to conform to Standard No. 108 using the incandescent bulbs only, and that your regard the LEDs as an "accessory" acceptable to NHTSA (Your Question 1).

We agree. Because the LEDs are not necessary to conformance with Standard No. 108, they are considered supplemental lighting equipment. Such equipment is permitted by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You state that when the taillamp and LEDs are lit simultaneously, the total intensity does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for a one-section taillamp. It would therefore appear that the presence of the LEDs does not impair the effectiveness of the taillamp (or the stop lamp, which will have a higher intensity).

The red LEDs will provide a red color through the amber lens that covers the turn signal lamp, and will remain on when the turn signal is activated (Your Question 2). This design also appears permissible. We have never considered contiguous rear steady-burning red and flashing amber lamps to be prohibited by Standard No. 108 (the basic design of your lamp), and we do not believe that the supplemental red LEDs will impair the effectiveness of the amber turn signal lamp.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-7.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Rita Cola Carroll, M.A. -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TO: Office of Chief Council for the NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Rita Cola Carroll (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

I represent the Bus Safety Committee from Great Valley School District in Southeastern Pennsylvania. I would like to request a formal written response to the following question. If a child is not sitting fully in a school bus seat, that is, a child's body is partially extending into the aisle, is the child afforded the protection of the bus compartment in accordance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222? A rapid response to this question would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 10, 1995

FROM: Edward Mansell -- Chief Engineer, Polar Tank Trailer, Inc.

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/1/95 LETTER FROM Sanuel J. Dubbin to Edward Mansell (Redbook 2; Std. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

We are requesting and interpretation of the language included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, paragraph S5.7 Conspicuit Systems.

The NHTSA has made it clear that the exact location and configuration of conspicuity sheeting is subject to variation based on the practicability of installation. Our request involves the practicability of installation of conspicuity sheeting on the rear of some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs).

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) calls for sheeting to be placed across the full width of the trailer as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface. For many tank trailers the rear bumper, located approximately 0.5 m above the road surface, is the closest practicable location for installation of conspicuity sheeting. For some FGTTs, however, rear-mounted load/unload ports, pumps and valves are located directly above the center portion of the rear bumper.

Conspicuity sheeting affixed to a bumper under the load/unload ports is subjected to repeat exposure to hot water as run off from wash downs cascades over the sheeting. Typically this area is washed at least once per day with water up to 200 degrees F.

This repeated exposure to hot water degrades the conspicuity sheeting. Modes of failure include: loss of red coloring; delamination; loss of brightness; bubbling; cracking; and loss of adhesion. The deleterious effects of this exposure is evident regardless of the manufacturer of the sheeting. Analysis shows that sheeting applied to the rear of trailers with designs which do not result in the cascade of hot water over the sheeting do not experience these problems.

P2

We interpret paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) to allow, that since installation of sheeting in a location subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable, in the case of FGTTs with designs which results in water cascading from the load/unload area over the center fo the rear bumper, the sheeting may be applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area. Further, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper.

Otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area.

We believe that this proposal meets the intent of Standard 108 by delineating the rear of FGTTs without requiring manufacturers to redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water. We look forward to your interpretation of the Standard and await your reply.

ID: nht95-7.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/3/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS K. O'CONNOR TO NHTSA (OCC 11189)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter asking about seat belt requirements for a step van with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You asked whether lap belts versus lap/shoulder belts are needed for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As discussed below, either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts may be used for this type of vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I note that this standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208. That section provides vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, dealing with automatic crash protection, is not relevant to your inquiry. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to install Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) belts at every seating position. Thus, either lap or lap/shoulder belts may be used to meet S4.3.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1995

FROM: Gerald R. Stewart -- Office of Safety Performance Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, NHTSA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation for Safety Grooves

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/13/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Borje Kukka (A43; Std. 104; Std. 205)

TEXT: MEMORANDUM:

At a recent meeting I received a video tape and brochures on safety grooves which are used in Finland and other countries to help keep windshields and wiper blades clean in adverse weather. Mr. Borje Kukka from Helsinki Finland asked for help with regard to which vehicle safety standards, if any, would be applicable to safety grooves.

I have sent Mr. Kukka a letter with most of the information he needs; however Mr. Felrice suggested that I request an interpretation from Chief Counsel to be sent to Mr. Kukka so that he has a complete understanding of whether safety grooves are considered an item of vehicle equipment or not.

I am submitting the video tape, brochures, and a copy of my letter to Mr. Kukka. Please prepare an interpretation letter for Mr. Kukka. If you have questions contact me at 366-5268 or Mr. Kukka at the following:

Borje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki Finland

Phones: 011 358 0 493 013 private 011 358 02 419 820 Fax 011 358 0 407 315 cellular 011 358 49 414 727

Attachment

Mr. Borje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki Finland

Dear Mr. Kukka,

Thank you for inviting me to your meeting with Mr. Nitze to review the safety groove principles and video tape. I was impressed with the simplicity of the process for grinding the grooves into a vehicle windshield and also with the performance of the grooves on keeping the windshield and wiper blades clean during adverse conditions.

I contacted the Office of Chief Counsel and a search of interpretations produced an example for a device which cleans windshield wipers. A copy is attached along with some general information which will help you. As I said in the meeting, it is important for you to understand the term "render inoperative" as it refers to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 and 104. Copies of these are attached. At the meeting I gave you a copy of the ANS 226 document which is referenced by Standard 205.

At this point, it is important for you to know whether the safety grooves would be considered by our agency as an item of motor vehicle equipment or not. I have provided your video tape and brochures to the Chief Counsel Office with a request for an interpretation of the question of which vehicle safety standards, if any, are applicable to your safety grooves. An answer should be available within 60 days.

Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to learn about a simple process that can improve a driver's ability to drive safely. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have questions or need more information please do not hesitate to call me at 202-366-5268.