ID: nht95-6.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: SABURO INUI -- VICE PRESIDENT, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS 114 Theft Prevention, Final Rule Vehicle Rollaway Test Procedure [Docket No. 1-21; Notice 13]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SABURO INUI (A43; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack;

Toyota would like to request an official interpretation concerning the automatic transmission park position test procedure outlined in the in the FMVSS 114 final rule, as given in the June 7, 1995 Federal Register.

Subsequent to publishing the final rule, NHTSA issued an interpretation to General Motors describing the test procedure as a "static" test, i.e. dynamic body motions were not to be included in the overall measurement of vehicle motion. It is also our understanding that the measurement is to be taken beginning at the moment before the service brake is released. Sections S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both describe the test procedure as follows; (step numbers are added for clarity)

NHTSA procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 5. Apply the service brake Step 6. Release the parking brake Step 7. Release the service brake Step 8. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm.

As written, step 2 of this procedure requires application of the service brake and step 5 requires the same. But there is no action to release the service brake. We believe the intention of the procedure either requires a release of the service brake between steps 2 and 5, or step 5 should be eliminated (meaning the service brake is only released to begin the measurement).

Therefore, we are proposing the following revised procedure;

Toyota's Proposed Procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Release the service brake Step 5. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 6. Apply the service brake Step 7. Release the parking brake Step 8. Release the service brake Step 9. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm

Obviously, if the vehicle is not equipped with a parking brake, Steps 4, 6, and 7 of Toyota's procedure (or Steps 5 and 6 of NHTSA's procedure) would be eliminated.

Therefore, we request an interpretation of whether Toyota's proposed procedure fulfills the intention of NHTSA's test requirement.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Tinto of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

ID: nht95-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: SABURO INUI -- VICE PRESIDENT, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS 114 Theft Prevention, Final Rule Vehicle Rollaway Test Procedure [Docket No. 1-21; Notice 13]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SABURO INUI (A43; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack;

Toyota would like to request an official interpretation concerning the automatic transmission park position test procedure outlined in the in the FMVSS 114 final rule, as given in the June 7, 1995 Federal Register.

Subsequent to publishing the final rule, NHTSA issued an interpretation to General Motors describing the test procedure as a "static" test, i.e. dynamic body motions were not to be included in the overall measurement of vehicle motion. It is also our un derstanding that the measurement is to be taken beginning at the moment before the service brake is released. Sections S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both describe the test procedure as follows; (step numbers are added for clarity)

NHTSA procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 5. Apply the service brake Step 6. Release the parking brake Step 7. Release the service brake Step 8. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm.

As written, step 2 of this procedure requires application of the service brake and step 5 requires the same. But there is no action to release the service brake. We believe the intention of the procedure either requires a release of the service brake b etween steps 2 and 5, or step 5 should be eliminated (meaning the service brake is only released to begin the measurement).

Therefore, we are proposing the following revised procedure;

Toyota's Proposed Procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Release the service brake Step 5. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 6. Apply the service brake Step 7. Release the parking brake Step 8. Release the service brake Step 9. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm

Obviously, if the vehicle is not equipped with a parking brake, Steps 4, 6, and 7 of Toyota's procedure (or Steps 5 and 6 of NHTSA's procedure) would be eliminated.

Therefore, we request an interpretation of whether Toyota's proposed procedure fulfills the intention of NHTSA's test requirement.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Tinto of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

ID: 3170yy

Jeffrey P. Shimp, Engineer
Fleet Engineering & Q.A.
Transportation Department
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Charles Center
P.O. Box 1475
Baltimore, MD 21203-1475

Dear Mr. Shimp:

This responds to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding the addition of a seat to your company's cargo vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, Baltimore Gas and Electric may install additional seats in the cargo vans it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, providing Baltimore Gas and Electric performs the work themselves.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of Maryland to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modifications to your vans. In addition, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of Maryland regarding potential liability for your company in connection with adding a seat to these vans.

Finally, although Federal law does not regulate your company's planned addition of seats to its vehicles, we urge you to carefully consider the safety issues that would arise if your company proceeds with the installation of these additional seats. Specifically, this agency encourages your company to select and install any additional seats in a way that will not degrade occupant protection, and to install a safety belt for those additional seats, so that your employees using the additional seat will be protected in the event of a crash.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:l0/9/9l

ID: nht91-6.17

DATE: October 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey P. Shimp -- Engineer, Fleet Engineering & Q.A., Transportation Department, Baltimore Gas and Electric

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Jeffrey P. Shimp to Mary Versailles (OCC 6483)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 17, 1991, regarding the addition of a seat to your company's cargo vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of Federal law for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles or new items of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards at the time the product is delivered to the first purchaser in good faith for purposes other than resale.

After a vehicle is delivered to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Please note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Therefore, Baltimore Gas and Electric may install additional seats in the cargo vans it owns without violating the "render inoperative" provision or any other provisions of the Safety Act, providing Baltimore Gas and Electric performs the work themselves.

However, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that owners can make to their own vehicles. You should contact the State of Maryland to learn if it has enacted any laws or regulations that apply to your planned modifications to your vans. In addition, you may wish to consult with an attorney familiar with the law in the State of Maryland regarding potential liability for your company in connection with adding a seat to these vans.

Finally, although Federal law does not regulate your company's planned addition of seats to its vehicles, we urge you to carefully consider the safety issues that would arise if your company proceeds with the installation of these additional seats. Specifically, this agency encourages your company to select and install any additional seats in a way that will not degrade occupant protection, and to install a safety belt for those additional seats, so that your employees using the additional seat will be protected in the event of a crash.

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

ID: aiam3304

Dear Mr. Kramer: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1980,to Stephen Oesch of m office concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You requested an interpretation of whether an alternative configuration you are considering for the Kantwet 'One Step' child restraint would comply with Section 6.1.2.2.1(c) of the standard.; You described the configuration as one in which the crotch strap woul be modified so that it 'is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the [agency's] April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield. The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated.'; As you have described the modified crotch strap, it is an integral par of the movable shield since it is not a separate device that must be attached to the shield each time the restraint is used, but is formed as a unit with the shield. Since the crotch strap is an integral device, it can be attached during the testing of the restraint.; As mentioned in our letter of April 29, 1980, we urge that you an other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the upper torso restraint and the crotch strap permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment or anchorage device to which they are attached.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 11815.ZTV

Mr. Tom Barron
320 Putnam
Springdale, Arkansas 72764

Dear Mr. Barron:

Thank you for your letter mailed April 10, 1996, telling the Department of Transportation of your "Saf-T-Lit" invention. This consists of a two-lamp unit containing a stop lamp and a turn signal lamp. These lamps would be mounted on each side of a semi trailer, at the top. In your view, they are needed because the original equipment lamps mounted at the bottom of a trailer may be obscured by intervening traffic, or by snow or fog.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the Department that establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture of vehicles, including trailers. The Federal Highway Administration is the agency that establishes similar standards for the operation of commercial motor vehicles, including trailers, in interstate commerce.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , is the safety standard that applies to original equipment lighting for vehicles, including trailers. Under Standard No. 108, a trailer manufacturer may locate rear turn signal lamps at any point it chooses between 15 and 83 inches above the road surface, and stop lamps between 15 and 72 inches.

Under Standard No. 108, your invention is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, and it is permissible as original equipment if it does not "impair the effectiveness" of the other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We regard original equipment as including equipment that a dealer may install after receiving a new vehicle from the factory and before the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. In your case, we do not believe that your invention , as you have described it to us, would impair the effectiveness of any other rear lighting equipment. However, your diagram shows your lamps in the location generally occupied by clearance lamps. Standard No. 108 requires that trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more have a pair of clearance lamps to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and located as near the top as practicable. Thus, your invention could not be installed to replace these lamps without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We assume that your invention would therefore be mounted below these lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, there is no Federal restriction on the sale of supplementary lamps but the question under Federal law is whether their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business (this does not include the owner's own service facilities if restricted to its own vehicles) would "make inoperative" any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Generally, we interpret "make inoperative" to equate to "impair the effectiveness". We have previously concluded that your invention is not likely to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment if installed before the initial sale of a trailer, and, for this reason, we do not believe that your invention would have an inoperative effect on other rear lighting equipment when installed after the initial sale of the vehicle, keeping in mind my previous comment about the clearance lamps. The Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration has advised that operation of semi trailers with your invention installed would be permissible under its regulations, provided that the installation does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

Please bear in mind that the sale and use of supplementary lighting equipment, though permissible under Federal law, is also subject to the laws of the individual states. We are unable to advise you on state law but an interpretation can be provided by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your writing us of your concerns and your efforts to improve safety on our nation's highways. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer them. His phone number is 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/16/96

ID: nht72-3.28

DATE: 06/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Transportation Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you asked whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Each expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.

Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency is considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.

ID: nht75-1.12

DATE: 07/08/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1975, asking at what point the test voltage may be measured during testing for compliance with the Standard No. 103, Windshield Defogging and Defrosting Systems, requirement that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor or the supply end of the motor dropping resistor. Your question relates to the meaning of "the supply end of the motor dropping resistor."

Measurement of the blower motor test voltage should occur at the supply side of the motor where there is no resistor. Where the system contains a resistor, the voltage should be measured at the supply side of the resistor, not between the resistor and the motor. The reason for this is that the test voltage level specified in the standard is intended to relate only to the voltage as it is fed into the defrosting and defogging system. The purpose of the voltage level specification is to assure a system capability to handle voltage levels that will normally be encountered during operation of the defroster and defogger. This can be accomplished by measurement of the voltage before the current reaches the resistor.

Yours Truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

May 5, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103 - Windshield Defrosting & Defogging Systems

FMVSS 103 through reference to SAE J902, requires that the blower motor test voltage be 15% over nominal system rating at the blower motor (for example 13.8 volts on the 12 volt system) or the supply end of motor dropping resistor.

The terminology "the supply end of motor dropping resistor" does not, in our opinion, provide specific direction on the test methods to be used for designing to this Standard. We would appreciate receiving clarification as to whether or not the test voltage may be measured at:

1. the motor,

2. the circuit between the dropping resistor and the motor, or

3. the dropping resistor on the side of the electrical power source.

We recommend that the requirements be interpreted to mean that the test voltage shall be measured at the motor or before the dropping resistor if included in the defroster motor circuit.

Permitting the use of a dropping resistor in the defroster motor circuit permits the designer to provide exact blower motor speeds for this function. Should, however, this resistor be excluded during compliance testing, the higher voltage at the motor would result in higher fan speeds, which might result in less than optimum deicing of the windshield.

Should you require any additional information concerning this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office.

Heinz W. Gerth

Assistant Vice President

Engineering

ID: aiam4395

Dear Mr. Lang: I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of th legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This 'buckle shield' is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child restraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to release the buckle.; Although we understand your concern that young children not be able t easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with that Standard before selling the product.; Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to ge 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) 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.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies two elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraints (sic) system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.; If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at thi address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 10868-2

Mr. John N. Quinata
Customs and Quarantine Agency
Government of Guam
Suite 225, 2nd Floor, GITC Bldg.
Tamuning, Guam 96911

Dear Mr. Quinata:

This responds to your letter asking whether used Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some information we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS.

The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider.

The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a "motor vehicle," since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." Work-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time.

We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a "truck" under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs for trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture.

As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your letter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20:PAtelsek:62992:OCC 10868:5/22/95:revised 7/3/95 ref:VSA d:7/25/95