ID: nht72-3.45

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fairchild Semiconductor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject of the situations in which S7.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 permits operation of the engine starting system, notwithstanding the ignition interlock requirements of S7.4.1 of the standard.

Your first question is whether the engine may be restarted if the ignition switch is turned off after the driver has left the seat. Our reply is that restart would not be permitted except within a period of three minutes after the switch has been turned off. There is no sequential relationship between the operation of the switch and the driver's leaving the seat, so that the starting system will have to become inoperable if the driver has left the seat and has turned the ignition off, regardless of whether he turned the switch before or after leaving the seat.

Your second question is whether the engine may be restarted if the ignition switch is turned off, then on, and then the driver leaves his seat. Our reply is again that restart would not be permitted. S7.4.3 refers to operation "if the ignition has not been turned off". Once the ignition has been turned off, turning it on again will not revive the restart mode unless the engine is actually started again and then stopped with the ignition "on".

We have forwarded your check for a Federal Register subscription to the Superintendent of Documents. Enclosed you will find a copy of Notice 20, as you requested.

ID: nht88-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Charles Wilson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson: 4/18/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wayne Apple (Std. 108); 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Stephenson (Std. 108)

TEXT: The Honorable Charles Wilson House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1987, to Ms. Brenda Brown, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation, which has been forwarded to this Office for reply. Unfortunately/ the Department has no record of receiving your p revious letter of August 19, 1987.

You have written on behalf of your constituent Mr. W. P. Brandon of Palestine who has designed a Wide Right Turn signal for installation on the rear of trailers. The device consists of the words Wide Right Turn and an arrow, in black on a caution yellow background. The device is attached to the lower right rear of a trailer, and flashes when the turn indicator is positioned for a right turn. Mr. Brandon asks three questions with respect to his device, which I shall answer shortly.

Preliminarily let me note that the applicable Federal law and regulation are, respectively, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. St andard No. 108 permits a supplementary lighting device such as Mr. Brandon's as original trailer equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, such as the standard turn signal system. The Vehi cle Safety Act permits it as aftermarket trailer equipment if its installation by a person other than the trailer owner does not render inoperative, wholly or in part, equipment installed on the trailer pursuant to Standard No. 108 or any other safety st andard.

With these general remarks in mind, we reach the three questions that Mr. Brandon asked.

"1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing 'Wide Right Turn' signal on the lower right rear of a trailer?" The answer is no, as long as there is no impairment of the effectiveness of the other rear lamps (i.e., the standard turn signal must continue to operate when the lever is in the position indicating a right turn, but the wide turn signal should not opera te when the hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) are on).

"2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow background or should it be another color"?

The agency does not prescribe the color of supplementary lighting devices, and color is subject only to the "impairment" restriction. Required lighting equipment on the rear of trailers may be white (back up lamps), amber (turn signals), or red (the alte rnative color for turn signals, and the required color for taillamps and stop lamps). I am unsure what "safety yellow" is, but it would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the red, amber, or white lamps on the trailer's rear.

"3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned?"

There are no Federal restrictions or requirements. However, supplementary lighting devices such as Mr. Brandon's are subject to regulation in all their aspects by the States in which they will be sold and used. We are not conversant with State regulation s on this subject, and suggest that, for further advice, Mr. Brandon contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

We appreciate Mr. Brandon's interest in safety, and your writing us with respect to his "Wide Turn Signal" device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

WEB MARKETING COMPANY P. 0. Box 1609 Palestine, TX 75801

August 17, 1987

Mr. Larry Murphy 2265 H. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Murphy,

As per our telephone conversation today, the following is a discription of the "Wide Right Turn" signal I have designed. The signal is approximately 10 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch thick. The words and arrow are in black on a caution yellow background. The signal will be attached by bolts or welding to the lower right hand corner of the trailer. The signal will flash on and off when the driver positions his turn indicator for a right turn. (See attached photograph).

What I need to know from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following: 1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing "Wide Right Turn" signal on the lower right rear of a trailer.

2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow back-ground or should it be in another color.

3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned.

As I stated to you on the phone I am working with Patent Attorneys in Houston regarding Patent Application of this signal devise.

Mr. Murphy, your assistance with the D.O.T. in getting me some answers will be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

W. P. Brandon WEB MARKETING COMPANY (214)538-2512

WPB/eb

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

We wrote to the Department on August 19, 1987, on behalf of Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks, which he had designed.

I would appreciate it if you will provide us with the status of action on this matter. We are enclosing copies of the prior correspondence for ease of reference.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

August 19, 1987

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks which he has designed.

As you may note, Mr. Brandon has certain questions that he has asked our assistance in getting answers. Any information which you may provide to answer these questions would be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

ID: 13171.jeg

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter concerning the recent air bag warning label rule (Docket 74-14; Notice 103). You asked whether it is permissible to place a reference to the owner's manual, such as "See owner's manual for further important safety information," on the side of the sun visor bearing the air bag alert label. As discussed below, the answer is no.

Section S4.5.1(b)(3) of Standard No. 208 sets forth the following limitation on providing additional information, beyond what is required by the standard, on the sun visor:

Except for the information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the sun visor warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.

Thus, on the warning label side of the visor, the only information, of any sort, that may appear is that specified for the warning label and for the air bag maintenance label. On the alert label side, the only information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts that may appear is that specified for the alert label.

We interpret the term "information" broadly and consider a reference statement such as "See owner's manual for further important safety information" or similar language, added to the alert label side of the visor, to be information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts and therefore precluded by section S4.5.1(b)(3). This conclusion follows from both the context in which this statement would be provided, and the purposes for providing the statement. We also note that the statement is essentially taken from the previous air bag warning label specified by Standard No. 208, which the agency expressly decided to eliminate.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:
1/31/97

ID: nht91-6.24

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: D. E. Graham -- Engineering Manager, Regulatory, Test & Service Engineering, ASC Incorporated

TO: Richard Reed -- Office of Crash Avoidance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to D. E. Graham (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

I would like to request a formal written response to a question of interpretation of the recently revised FMVSS 118 - Power Operated Window Systems (Docket No. 87-10" Notice 4).

Specifically, the sections in question for interpretation are S5(a) and S5 (b). The question is:

Do these sections in any way apply to the rearward edge of a venting, sliding sunroof as it moves from the vent position to the fully closed position?

Your timely response would be beneficial in ASC Incorporated's ongoing efforts to fully comply with the applicable safety standards for current and new products.

ID: aiam3175

Dear Mr. Mitsui: This responds to a letter we received from Mitsui & Company askin questions concerning the 'resistance to light' test in paragraph S5.1(e) of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, as it applies to polyester seat belt webbing. You asked whether it is true that this paragraph will not be enforced for dacron and polyester webbing until an appropriate test method can be incorporated in the standard, and whether such a test method is being developed.; In a July 23, 1976, letter to the Celanese Fibers Marketing Company th agency stated that the Standard No. 209 test procedure for resistance to light was developed to test nylon webbing and that the procedure does not give meaningful results for the new polyester webbings. Therefore, Celanese was informed that the requirement would not be enforced for polyester webbing until a new procedure could be developed. This letter was placed in our public docket for the benefit of all interested parties (in our 'Redbook' interpretations file). The agency does not intend to place an announcement of this interpretation in the *Federal Register*, however, since the standard will soon be amended to incorporate an appropriate test procedure for dacron and polyester webbing.; The new test procedure was developed for the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration by the Narrow Fabrics Institute and the Society of Automotive Engineers Task Force on Webbing. The new procedure would require the use of a plain glass filter instead of the Corex B filter currently required. The agency anticipates rulemaking to incorporate this new procedure sometime early next year, depending on rulemaking priorities.; I am enclosing a copy of our 1976 letter to Celanese for you information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW III -- CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 12, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO DITLOW

TEXT: Your November 1 letter refusing to question General Motors' failure to provide retrofit rear shoulder belts for 9 million cars reflects such callous disregard for human life and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.

First, you totally ignore the fact that GM is actively discouraging consumers from installing shoulder belts in 9 million cars by telling them the shoulder belt offers no added safety protection over the lap belt alone. What possible scientific basis is there for such a statement, particularly when GM's chief seatbelt effectiveness expert, Leonard Evans, concludes that shoulder/lap belts are more than twice as effective as lap belts alone in preventing fatalities. If rear lap belts are as effective as shoulder/lap belts, then why is NHTSA proposing to require shoulder belts in rear seats?

Second, you condone GM's actions to discourage installation of rear shoulder belts by trivalizing 9 million cars as "a few of its past models." I assure you that the millions of people who ride with their lives at greater risk in the rear seats of these cars deserve far more respect than you show them.

Third, NHTSA's voluntary program to make retrofit shoulder belts available is in shambles. Not a day goes by without CAS receiving complaints from consumers about dealers refusing to install shoulder belts in rear seats. GM encourages this withholding of lifesaving shoulder belts by alleging there is research that adding shoulder belts doesn't save lives. Telling people that shoulder belts do not save lives clearly frustrates NHTSA's policy of encouraging retrofits.

Fourth, the only substantive statement in your response was that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to mandate the availability of retrofit shoulder belts. This is nothing more than a strawman argument as my September 9 letter never said NHTSA has the statutory authority to mandate retrofit kits. But in view of the greater effectiveness of shoulder belts and the increased use of rear lap belts which cause death in some accidents, the question arises as to why NHTSA doesn't ask Congress for su ch authority?

Your substantive response to the questions raised in these letters is welcomed.

ID: 8627

Vincent Schulze, Chief
Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation
State of New Jersey
Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue
CN 600
Trenton, NJ 08625

Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your February 26, 1993 letter to Mr. Ron Havelar of the Federal Highway Administration. Because your question concerns a safety standard issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it has been referred to my office for reply. You ask whether a bus can comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, particularly S5.4, if it is equipped with side exit windows which slide open.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that sliding windows are not prohibited by Standard No. 217, as long as they comply with all of the standard's requirements. The requirement in S5.4 that the emergency exit must be "manually extendable" refers to the ability to open the exit manually, i.e., even when the bus's power is off. Sliding windows must also be capable of complying when the window is in either the opened or the closed position.

While sliding windows are not prohibited, NHTSA believes it is difficult for sliding windows to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. For example, S5.3 of Standard No. 217 specifies release requirements for emergency exits. Section S5.3.2 states, in part,

The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release one or two force applications, at least one of which differs by a 90 to 180 from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface).

Thus it appears that the initial motion to open an exit window must be outward and perpendicular to the exit surface, even if it is a sliding window.

You should be aware that on February 25, 1992, the Blue Bird Body Company petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 217. One issue raised by this petition is the installation of sliding exit windows. This petition has been granted and the agency is proceeding with rulemaking on this issue.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/2/93

ID: nht93-4.14

DATE: June 2, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Vincent Schulze -- Chief, Motor Carrier Inspection and Investigation, State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-93 from Vincent Schulze to Ron Havelar.

TEXT: This responds to your February 26, 1993 letter to Mr. Ron Havelar of the Federal Highway Administration. Because your question concerns a safety standard issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it has been referred to my office for reply. You ask whether a bus can comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE, particularly S5.4, if it is equipped with side exit windows which slide open.

NHTSA's longstanding position is that sliding windows are not prohibited by Standard No. 217, as long as they comply with all of the standard's requirements. The requirement in S5.4 that the emergency exit must be "manually extendable" refers to the ability to open the exit manually, i.e., even when the bus's power is off. Sliding windows must also be capable of complying when the window is in either the opened or the closed position.

While sliding windows are not prohibited, NHTSA believes it is difficult for sliding windows to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217. For example, S5.3 of Standard No. 217 specifies release requirements for emergency exits. Section S5.3.2 states, in part,

The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release one or two force applications, at least one of which differs by a 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface).

Thus it appears that the initial motion to open an exit window must be outward and perpendicular to the exit surface, even if it is a sliding window.

You should be aware that on February 25, 1992, the Blue Bird Body Company petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 217. One issue raised by this petition is the installation of sliding exit windows. This petition has been granted and the agency is proceeding with rulemaking on this issue.

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

ID: aiam0368

Dear Mr. West: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses (sic), either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('safety standards') and other regulations.; Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bik Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act'). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a 'motor vehicle' primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered 'motor vehicles' because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with 'special features for occasional off-road use' it is a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' ('MPV') under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.; Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import either in kit form or as an assemblage, is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under the Act. It is not a chassis- cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of 'manufacturer,' Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.; Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standard are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon importation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.; If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer-manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' and the assemblage an 'incomplete vehicle' as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to S 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in S 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies*, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a 'guideline' before January 1, 1972, because the S 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a *de facto* certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a S568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.; You have also asked if it is possible to 'retail the unit in it present form with an item of equipment on it' that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.; In closing, I want to call your attention to Section 110(e) of the Ac and 49 CFR S 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of S 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.; If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them fo you.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 28, 1985 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp/ You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen of America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this related to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high-mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate. The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defect could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body. You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid. Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Original Signed by Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel