ID: 86-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brian Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulations apply to your product, which is called the "Rearscope Wide Angle Lens." Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

"We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.

Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings, such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the performance of the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 19, 1986

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

REAR SCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS

Dear Sirs,

As per letter dated 4/25/86 (copy enclosed) I am writing to determine the status of our product the "REARSCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS" as to the requirements oF current Federal Glazing standards, Our product which mounts on the rear window of Bus r Coach is made of Diakon by I.C.I. Ltd. of Great Britain, This acrylic product is similar. to DuPonts "Lexan" with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

If you feel a need to examine the product I would be more than willing to mail you a lens for testing purposes, In the meantime I am enclosing a brochure so that you might evaluate the situation, I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Brian Peck President

April 25, 1986

Mr. Brian Peck Rearscope International Limited 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, California 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in answer to your letter of April 2, 1986: concerning the use of the Rearscope Wide Angle Lense in Pennsylvania.

After receiving your letter, I contacted the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if there were any applicable federal standards on glazing which had to be met. NHTSA indicated that they would review this request and suggested that you write to they for this information at the following address: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have already contacted NHTSA for approval, please forward their response to this Department. Pending receipt of this written notification from NHTSA, this Department will determine if your lens meets all Pennsylvania requirements.

Sincerely,

John A. Pachuta, Director Bureau or Motor Vehicles

ID: 2872o

Mr. Dan Moore
Engineer - Car Design
Busch Transportation Services
5901 State Route 15
Belleville, IL 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require actual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appears that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under 568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in 567.5, Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under 568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its vehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components; 2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard; or 3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567#568 d:5/l3/88

ID: 7532

Mr. David H. Milligan
7287 S. 300 E.
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Milligan:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Car Seat Support," an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints.

Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear-facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars.

Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The "standard seat assembly" used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward- slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck.

The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as "blocks of wood" and "rolled up towels" to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support.

NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213

applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 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 device contain a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of '108(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.

Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear-facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product.

In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear- facing restraint that needs a "support" to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:213 d:9/27/92

ID: nht79-3.12

DATE: 11/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Schultz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportation regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.

From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether any law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.

There is no law administered by this agency which would bar an individual from installing a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual or by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as to the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75 Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current "system" performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seg.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor-vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

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

Thus, if one of the named persons or entities added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY, (Illegible Pages)

THANK YOU,

C ROBERT SCHULTZ

LUND INDUSTRIES INC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Economic Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar G. Meyer Bureau of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Commerce 407 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your November 24, 1987 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from "old clothes and rags." Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cus hions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisf action of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials.

The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this a gency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge.

If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative vehi cle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 30 2. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a secti on 108(a)(2)(A). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Division of Economic Development

November 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a British prospect who is considering moving to Florida to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs. He will be using old clothes and rags as raw materials.

Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom of Your office, it is our understanding that Standard No. 302: Flammability of Interior Materials (Vol. 49, Section 571.302 Code of Federal Regulations) applies to seat cushions and seat backs.

We would appreciate if you could provide us with a legal interpretation addressing the prospect's question: Is it legal in the U.S. to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs using old clothes and rags as raw materials?

The prospect will visit Florida in early December. We would like to be ready with an answer at that time. Our telefax number is 904/487-1407. If you have any questions please call me at 904/487-2971.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Edgar G . Meyer Economist EGM/mw cc: Deidre Hom

ID: nht92-2.3

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS PRICE -- ABAS MARKETING, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-23-92 FROM THOMAS D. PRICE TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7812)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about requirements for a device you call a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system," for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system" which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121.

If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).)

You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect.

Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet.

Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949.

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: nht94-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Saburo Inui to Robert Hellmuth (9205)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the test conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve "test weight:"

Test Weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away fr om the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * *

You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." Th e answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows.

Under S6.1, "test weight" is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating s pecified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position.

There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the

2

fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. There fore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished.

Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event t hat the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers).

You next ask about the "vehicle test attitude" specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its "as delivered" condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its "fully loaded condition," under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or t he "fully loaded attitude" or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.

You ask whether the term "fully loaded attitude" means the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition." The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that "[t]he 'fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1." As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight.

You also ask whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that "[t]he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attit ude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude." This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is so mewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded

3

condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved.

Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact tes t procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 7812

Mr. Thomas Price
ABAS Marketing, Inc.
P.O. Box 5644
Norman, OK 73070

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements for a device you call a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system," for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a "noncomputerized antilock braking assist system" which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121.

If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).)

You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106.

I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect.

Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet.

Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949.

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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:11/25/92

ID: nht74-5.49

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Triboro Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning your request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974, following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.

We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unsual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.

SINCERELY,

Tribo Coach Corporation

April 4, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

In reply to your letter dated March 27, 1974, N40-3 (MPP)

Subject: Roof emergency exit (S5.2.1) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217

I am sure that you are becoming increasingly familiar with problems of making buses safer; this has also been our prime concern. In your letter you stated in order that the requirements be modified, there must be a showing, that their cost is unreasonable in terms of the safety benefits achieved. Again we are not concerned with the cost ratio, safety is our and your prime concern. About the abuses which the buses are subject to, you must take into account exactly, that which is going on in the buses. Bus seats being torn off there mounting, then seat cushions being thrown out of the window, window frames being dismantled and thrown out, screws from internal panels being removed and panels thrown out of buses, glass being broken, whereby cost and replacing is almost impossible, seat being cut up so as to be unrecognizable.

You speak of possible alternative steps taken to develop designs that will minimize the tampering with. I would like at this time to say that it is my opinion, in order to achieve the safety that we are both looking for, we should first develop the means to modify this condition that I presently see as a very dangerous and hazardous condition. Visualize the roof hatch being opened and the pupils boosting each other thru this hatch. What do you think will happen when the driver discovers this? immediately he will hit the brake pedal and where do you think the pupils will wind up? also, think of the traffic following. The hitting of the brake pedal will not be deliberately on our drivers part.

In an accident such as a roll over the bus can land on one of four sides. If it lands right side up that is on four wheels, there will be one entrance and one exit door. Eight large picture frame windows, if it lands on the left side. It will have one entrance door and one exit door and four large picture frame windows. The entire front windshield and the entire rear windshield, which are set in rubber can be kicked out very readily in any of the four positions, making an opening large enough to walk out in a standing position, if it lands on the right side there are four large picture frame windows. Also remembering the front and rear windshields, the most important part to remember, is in a roll over the sides of the bus will be pushed in there by buckeling up the roof. Because of the structure of the vehicle which I believe will distort the roof hatch and make it inoperable. This has been proven to be a fact.

To give you a short resume of my experiences aroun buses, listed below are the following:

1. 42 years as Superintendent of all Equipment.

2. A graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York.

3. Triboro Coach Corporation operates 165 city coaches.

4. Varsity Transit Inc. which is a school bus operation only and operates 1,378 vehicles which includes 80 lift buses hydraulically operated for wheel chairs.

This resume is not intended to impress you, or that I am an authority on the subject, but rather to show that I am familiar with the importance of that which you seek.

William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance

ID: nht95-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

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

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 12/23/94 letter from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Philip R. Recht (OCC 10600)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef:

We have received your letter of December 23, 1994, with respect to an alternative to HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources, and asking for our "guidance as to the most appropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations." Altho ugh your letter is silent on the matter, we understand from Dick Humphrey of your Washington office that GM would like to incorporate the revised light sources in production in the summer of 1995.

You have presented three possible methods for our consideration. The first is to "seek approval" through 49 CFR Part 564. The second is to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to incorporate the revised light sources. The third is to reque st that HB3 and HB4 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing.

Under the current regulatory scheme for headlamps, there are two regulations that govern the permissibility of replaceable light sources. The first of these, Standard No. 108, prescribes detailed dimensional specifications and performance requirements f or replaceable light sources Types HB1 through HB5. Faced with the possibility of an endless number of new light sources which could not be added to Standard No. 108 without at least two rulemaking notices, NHTSA decided to deregulate the dimensional asp ects of replaceable light sources by establishing Part 564 which sets up an agency procedure for the allowance of new light sources upon receipt of the dimensional information specified in the regulation. However, the new light source must not be interc hangeable with any other replaceable light source, either in Part 564 or Standard No. 108. NHTSA has been petitioned for reconsideration of this restriction but has not yet acted upon it. Further, it can be argued that there is a regulatory inconsisten cy in the different treatment of replaceable light sources, and that NHTSA needs to address this inconsistency.

NHTSA is conscious of the need for regulatory flexibility in both areas and is actively working towards their resolution.

At present, it appears that we could respond positively to petitions for reconsideration of Part 564 by a direct amendment allowing modifications in previous submissions, but we have not completed our examination of the possible safety ramifications of a llowing interchangeability of modified light sources. The inconsistent treatment of light source dimensions can be resolved through transfer of the HB Types to Part 564, but we do not believe that the Administrative Procedure Act permits us to do so with out a formal proposal asking public comment. In the present regulatory climate, we cannot estimate when the appropriate rulemaking notices will appear but GM's letter evidences the need for a less restrictive regulatory scheme, and we are sympathetic to GM's position. It is our best estimate that both final action on Part 564 and that a NPRM on the transfer amendments to Standard No. 108 will have been published by July 1, 1995, but the issuance of a final rule on the transfers may not have occurred a s of that date. I might add that we see no true safety issues presented by the modified light source; the difficulties are all procedural.

For these reasons, GM may wish at this point to petition for rulemaking to add HB3S and HB4S, as you call them, to Standard No. 108. In the less likely event that, during the pendency of the HB3S/HB4S rulemaking, rulemaking is completed to Standard No. 108 that removes the other HB Types and places them in Part 564, HB3S/HB4S could be added to Part 564 as a termination of the rulemaking. If a proposal to amend Standard No. 108 to remove the HB Types has not proceeded to a final rule, HB3S/HB4S could b e added to Standard No. 108 as proposed, which would allow their use in GM's vehicles.

The following scenario is the most likely resolution of GM's problem. Under paragraph 564.5(a), GM is eligible to furnish information on HB3S/HB4S to Part 564 because they do not meet the requirements of S7.7. Since information indicates that they are interchangeable with HB3/HB4, they could not be accepted absent an amendment to Part 564 allowing for changes. Thus, when a response to the petitions for reconsideration of Part 564 is published that allows changes without affecting interchangeability, GM could immediately file HB3S/HB4S information in Part 564 which, upon acceptance, would allow immediate use of the light sources in GM cars. Acceptance would also moot any rulemaking that might then be underway to add HB3S/HB4S to Standard No. 108 pur suant to a GM petition for rulemaking.

You have also suggested that a single new submission to Part 564 could consist of the HB3/HB4 information currently part of Standard No. 108 with the alternative configurations of HB3S/HB4S included on the drawing. Given paragraph S564.5(a)'s specific e xclusion of Standard No. 108 light sources from Part 564, we could not accept for Part 564 a submission that included a light source meeting the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108.

Our rulemaking and legal staff would be willing to talk with you further if you wish.

Sincerely