ID: nht91-1.30

DATE: January 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack Barben -- Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from Jack Barben to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5293)

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of October 8, 1990, with respect to a lighted side rail for pickup trucks that you wish to sell in the aftermarket. The rail would be offered in colors of amber, hot pink, and hot yellow. Your literature shows the rails as mounted immediately above the right and left longitudinal sides of the pickup bed. You would like to know our position on compliance of this product.

Aftermarket lighting equipment is permissible under the statutes and regulations of our agency as long as its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You have informed us that your literature warns against installation of the device in any manner that would orient it towards the front or rear of the vehicle, rather than along its sides. Also, you would provide instruc- tions "for separate fusing of the electrical supply lines." Under these circumstances, we believe that there would not be any rendering inoperative of the lighting equipment required by Motor Vehicle Standard No. 108. Further, the lighted side rails would appear to enhance the conspicuity of the vehicle from the side, even though the colors you intend to offer are not the red of the vehicle's rear side marker lamp and reflector.

We are not in a position to advise whether the lighted side rails would comply with the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered or operated. We recommend that you ask the opinion of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203 on this issue.

You have commented that "This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such." However, based upon a telephone conversation between you and Bill Fox of my staff, I understand that you do not expect confidential treatment of any of the information in your letter. Therefore, both your letter and our reply will be made available for inspection by the public in accordance with our policy on interpretations.

ID: aiam1692

Dear Mr. May: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74E-025) involving some H78-15 Cushionaire tires produced by the Kelly-Springfield Tire Company. It was stated that some of these tires fail to meet the high speed test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject tires doe not meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, your letter fails to present information in the form and order specified by Part 577.4. The statements required by Part 577.4(a) and (b) should be quoted exactly and should appear as the first and second sentences respectively of your letter. In this case, where notification is being conducted by the tire brand name owner, the requirements of section 577.4(b)(1) should be met by stating, 'Atlas Supply Company has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle (sic) exists in the H78-15 Atlas Cushionaire Tire.' Moreover, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken the position that defect notification letters regarding failures of compliance with applicable safety standards should refer to that noncompliance, and we believe your letter should include, in addition, a statement that the tires fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffi safety as required by Part 577.4(d). If vehicle crash is the potential occurrence, the letter must state this. Although many owners will assume that replacement tires are presently available, Part 577.4(e) does require that a firm date for parts availability be given, as well as an estimate of the time necessary to perform labor involved in correcting the defect (replacing the tire(s)).; Your statement, 'chunks of rubber may--at excessive speeds--detach fro the tire carcass and tread,' is, in our opinion, inaccurate, and the reference to excessive speeds should be deleted. The word 'excessive' implies that only drivers who drive at unreasonably high speeds may experience a failure. Since it is required, however, that the owners be informed of precautions that can be taken to reduce the chance of malfunction, an admonition against sustained high speed driving may be appropriate.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette and send a copy of the revised letter to this office and all owners who have not yet had their tires replaced.; If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J Reinhart or James Murray at this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of the Defect Notification regulation is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1854

Dear Mr. Fredhold: This responds to K-B Axle Company's March 4, 1975, request for guidanc in assisting K-B's customers in meeting their certification responsibilities under Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; Standard No. 121 specifies air brake performance requirements (and som equipment requirements) which newly-manufactured trucks, buses, and trailers must be capable of meeting. For example, the standard specifies that if a truck or bus, in the loaded and unloaded condition, is stopped six times from 60 mph on certain test surfaces, it must be capable of stopping at least once in 258 feet without leaving a 12-foot wide lane and without uncontrolled wheel lockup.; Many manufacturers incorrectly assume that this requirement means that in order to certify that it has this capability, each vehicle produced must actually be tested from 60 mph on a test track. In fact the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391, et. seq.) specifies the manufacturer's certification responsibility, which is to exercise 'due care' that the vehicle or item of equipment is *capable* of meeting all requirements.; NHTSA has made clear in the past, and has emphasized in it implementation of Standard No. 121, that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to fulfill his responsibility to exercise due care. To cite a simple example, if a safety standard specifies that a certain safety device be no less than 8 inches above the ground, it would not be necessary to measure the height of each safety device on each vehicle produced to assure in the exercise of due care that it complies.; Standard No. 121, of course, establishes more complex performanc requirements, and they would be affected by the addition of your 'tag' or 'pusher' axles. Most final- stage manufacturers and alterers feel confident that they can meet such requirements as minimum air tank volume when they add a third axle. In more complex areas, however, they require some reasonable basis on which to certify, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle still is capable of stopping within the required distance, and that the brake actuation and release times still meet the minimum performance levels of the standard.; As noted earlier, the standard and our statute do not require roa testing as the basis of certification. NHTSA, in a preamble to Standard No. 121 recognized:; >>>What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on al relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.<<<; Road testing would be one method of exercising due care. You customers, of course, may not have the capability to conduct road testing.; As a supplier of the added component, you are in a good position t develop engineering data on the effect your axle has when added to a 121 vehicle. For example, you could add your axle to a 121 chassis with a representative body and conduct a road test to see that the vehicle with the added axle and gross vehicle weight would still meet the stopping distance requirements. You might also test the actuation and release times on this vehicle to see that the axle addition does not cause non-conformity. This experimentation would permit you to make general statements about the conditions under which your axle could be added to a 121-type chassis without causing non- conformity.; Although retardation force is not a requirement for a vehicle othe than a trailer, you suggest use of dynamometer data as a basis of certification. Such information would be a valid basis of certification if it is shown that a reasonable correlation exists between the retardation forces you specify and the actual ability of the modified truck to stop.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-3.12

DATE: 03/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: YKK Zipper (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, in which you ask whether zippers fall under the purview of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302.

S4.1 of the standard states that the following components of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet its requirements:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

To the extent that a zipper in a part of any of these components, it would fall within the ambit of the standard while recreational vehicles are not currently covered by Standard No. 302, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued on November 15, 1974, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the coverage of the standard to include recreational vehicles (copy enclosed).

You should also be aware that other rulemaking relevant to the coverage of the standard is underway and will soon be published in the Federal Register. For this reason, we recommend you subscribe to either the Government Printing Office Safety Standard subscription service or an equivalent commercial service as detailed in the enclosure.

SINCERELY,

YKK ZIPPER (U S A) INC

February 13, 1975

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

We are manufacturers and suppliers of zippers and zipper chain to the Recreational Vehicle Industry and are confronted with a problem regarding Specification FMVSS-302 - Flammability Act.

We need a legal interpretation as to whether or not zippers are exempt from this 302 Spec. . No one is the R.V.I. Industry seems to have a clear concept as to the exemption or the inclusion of zippers.

The zipper industry feels that zippers are exempt from 302 as they are also exempt in the important field of Infants Wear (DOCFF 3-71).

Since time is of the essence we would appreciate a clear and concise legal interpretation immediately. Your attention to this matter will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

VICE PRESIDENT, SALES

ID: nht93-7.20

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Michinori Hachiya (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter requests your opinion regarding several aspects of the labeling requirements in the recent mandatory air bag rule. Our specific questions are set forth below.

1. Section 4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS 208, as amended in the recent final rule, states with regard to the information placed on the air bag warning label on the sun visor that "No other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed." May the same information appear on the visor in French, immediately following the English text? Permitting the addition of a French translation would facilitate harmonization with Canadian requirements for dual language labels. The French translation would add no information that contributes to "information overload," in our opinion, nor is it likely to cause confusion.

2. Section 4.5.1(a) states that the air bag maintenance label may be combined with the air bag warning label, but section 4.5.1(b) generally prohibits the addition of information to the warning label. We assume that the more specific statement in section 4.5.1(a) is controlling, and the two labels may be combined on the same side of the sun visor. If this assumption is correct, are there restrictions on the manner in which the two labels may be combined? For example, may the air bag maintenance information be inserted into the warning label information immediately prior to the words "see owner's manual for further information and explanations"? This sequence would avoid the necessity of referring twice to the owner's manual for further information.

3. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1 (b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

4. NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations provide that a utility vehicle rollover warning label may be affixed to the driver's side sun visor, and the label must include language urging the use of seat belts at all times. See 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1). However, the mandatory air bag rule prohibits placing (1) any additional information on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label and (2) any other information about the need to wear seat belts anywhere on the sun visor. 49 CFR 571.208, section 4.5.1(b)(2). The mandatory air bag rule did not explicitly amend the consumer information provision to prohibit the sun visor location of the rollover warning label. Since part 575 continues to explicitly authorize

the sun visor location for the rollover label, we believe that these requirements can be reconciled by interpreting them to permit the rollover label to be placed on the opposite side of the sun visor from the air bag warning label. Do you agree with this interpretation? We understand that GM and Ford have filed petitions to reconsider section 4.5.1(b)(2) which raises the same issue.

5. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

We request NHTSA to promptly consider these issues due to our lead time requirements. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: 08-006947revdrn

ID: Copy of 08-006947revdrn

ID: nht75-3.6

DATE: 11/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 301 as it applies to a vehicle with an electric fuel pump that operates only when the ignition switch is in the "ON" position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range.

You indicate in your letter that, in effect, the fuel pump can only operate when the vehicle's engine is running. Paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301 requires that an electrically driven fuel pump be operating at the time of the crash tests if the pump "normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated." It appears from your letter that activation of the electrical system by switching the ignition to "ON" will not by itself activate the fuel pump. As a result, the pump need not be operating at the time of the crash tests.

SINCERELY,

October 14, 1975

Richard Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Transportation

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of S7.1.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 301 to the system described below.

The fuel pump is electrically driven but operates only when the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range. The engine must be running in order to produce this condition.

Your earliest response in this matter would be appreciated.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: aiam0248

Dear Mr. Feran: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1970, in which you reques a ruling as to whether the Honda ATV is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations promulgated as a result of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).; The descriptive literature furnished with your letter states that, 'th machine looks to be street legal,' and shows that the vehicle has lighting equipment. Therefore, the Honda ATV, as described appears to be a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 102(3) of the Act, and specifically a 'motorcycle' as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b). Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.; We trust this will clarify the situation for you. We will be pleased t answer any additional questions that you might have.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Compliance, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam4859

"Dear Mr. Weisbrod: This responds to your letter of March 5, 199 concerning the requirements of Standard No. 301. According to your letter and information provided in a telephone conversation with John Rigby of this office on March 7, 1991, your company uses the Chrysler mini-van as a base vehicle for modification for use by drivers or passengers in wheelchairs. This modification is normally performed before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer. However, the modification is sometimes performed after sale of the vehicle to a consumer. During the modification, the position of the fuel tank is altered by moving it behind the rear axle, the fuel filler tube is modified to reach the new location, and new structure is added to the rear of the vehicle. To ensure compliance with Standard No. 301, your company had front, rear, and side impact tests performed on a modified vehicle. You believe that this crash testing is appropriate, but have been told by 'various entities' that no such testing is required. Below I will explain the requirements applicable (1) when your company modifies a vehicle before the first sale to a consumer and (2) when your company modifies a vehicle after its sale to a consumer. As you know, a manufacturer of new motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under the NHTSA regulation on certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered an 'alterer,' if the modifications involve more than the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable' components. An alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). When your company modifies a vehicle by relocating the fuel tank and making the other changes listed above before first sale to a consumer, it would be considered an alterer. Your company, therefore, would have to certify that every vehicle it alters complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, including Standard No. 301. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) does not expressly require alterers and manufacturers to conduct testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in the safety standards. Instead, the Safety Act requires alterers and manufacturers to exercise 'due care' in certifying that a vehicle complies with all safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). It is up to the alterer or manufacturer, in the first instance, to determine how he or she will establish that due care was exercised in making the certification. NHTSA itself must precisely follow the crash test procedures in Standard No. 301 when the agency conducts its compliance testing. Manufacturers or alterers may establish due care by conducting crash testing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Standard No. 301. Alternatively, manufacturers or alterers may use other procedures for assuring themselves that their vehicle complies with Standard No. 301, such as computer simulations or engineering analyses. Of course, the agency recognizes that conducting crash tests in accordance with the procedures in Standard No. 301 may be the simplest and most reliable way for an alterer to assure itself that the altered vehicles comply with the standard. When your company modifies a vehicle after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, it would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in 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, your company (or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) making the modifications you described in your letter must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. Again, the crash testing described in your letter would be a very effective way of ensuring that the modifications do not 'render inoperative' compliance with Standard No. 301. While your letter only concerned compliance with Standard No. 301, I would note that the modifications you discussed may affect compliance with other safety standards. Other safety standards that could be affected by the modifications include (1) Standard No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, (2) Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (3) Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, and (4) Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. I hope this information is useful to you. I also would like to express my appreciation for your company's interest in and commitment to motor vehicle safety. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ";