ID: nht92-8.45

DATE: February 25, 1992

FROM: L. Louis Raring -- Raring & Lipoff

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Motorcycle Helmet Law; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Paul J. Rice to L. Louis Raring (A39; Std. 218)

TEXT:

Our office represents numerous clients who are involved with the recently-enacted motorcycle helmet law in California which requires compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218. We have been asked to give advice to manufacturers of helmets, potential manufacturers of helmets and individuals who are receiving tickets for wearing improper helmets.

I have had discussions with Ron Engle, Division Chief for Safety Counter measures at the Department of Transportation, John Lee, Chief Engineer, and Cathy Demeter in the General Law Division. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation does not approve helmets but is more of a policing organization which tests and recalls helmets on a random basis. No one has been able to direct me to any policy documents, such as rules and regulations in the Federal Register, which would outline just what the Department of Transportation does regarding Standard No. 218.

There is a popular misconception in California among drivers, enforcement officers and manufacturers that the Department of Transportation actually approves helmets. It is my understanding in talking to people within DOT that DOT does not approve helmets and this is left strictly to the manufacturer to certify.

We are requesting a letter from your office outlining what DOT's policy is and its involvement with Federal Standard No. 218. We would appreciate any reference to any rules or regulations we can look up and copies of any policy statements which will help us to document what DOT's position is regarding approval of helmets under Standard No. 218.

If you have any questions, please give me a call. We anxiously await your response to this request.

ID: 9469

Michael J. Siris, Esq.
Attorney at Law
1615 Northern Boulevard
Manhasset, NY 11030

Dear Mr. Siris:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

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:VSA#114 d:3/10/94

ID: nht94-7.44

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Michael J. Siris to Mary Versailles (OCC-9469)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shaft lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

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: nht71-3.39

DATE: 07/16/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1971, to Administrator Douglas W. Toms, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.2(h) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, and particularly of the sentence containing the phrase ". . . the retractor and webbing shall be suspended vertically . . ."

Of the two interpretations you submitted, your interpretation 2 is correct. The retractor-webbing combination is suspended vertically -- there is no restriction on the attitude of the retractor with respect to the webbing. Thus, the retractor may be suspended in the position it will be mounted in the vehicle relative to the webbing when the webbing is in use.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

ID: 0573

Mr. R. F. Wareham
Technical Director
Total Vehicle Security, Ltd.
1 Friarn Lawn
Bridgwater
Somerset TA6 3LL
England

Dear Mr. Wareham:

We have received your letter of December 9, 1994, to John Womack, the Acting Chief Counsel who responded to David Lee on January 26, 1993. This will confirm that his opinion regarding the "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor" remains the official position of this agency.

We shall be pleased to meet with you when you come to Washington late in January. You may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office to make arrangements (202-366- 5263). We will be particularly interested in learning more about how the device "will be marketed as a D.I.Y. installation by the car owner."

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/21/94

ID: aiam1220

Dear Mr. Hirai: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1973, regarding th applicability of Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to a paper instruction sheet your Company may wish to place on the driver's side sun visor or on some other interior component to inform occupants about the seat belt interlock system.; The applicability of Standard No. 302 depends on whether th instruction sheet is attached in such a way as to form a permanent part of the sun visor or a permanent part of some other interior component covered by the standard. If the instruction sheet is easily removable and obviously not part of any component which must meet the requirements of the standard, we would not consider it to be part of any such component and, therefore, it would not be subject to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-4.23

DATE: 07/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, in which you request an interpretation that roof vent covers in recreational vehicles are excluded from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. Further, you ask our interpretation of the extent to which States may procedurally regulate the conformity of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with Federal safety standards.

We have reviewed the extensive brief you submitted in relation to the applicability of Standard No. 205 to recreational vehicle roof vent covers manufactured by injection molding, and have determined that roof vent covers fall within the purview of the Standard. Nevertheless, we concur in your view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish a surrogate testing procedure for this type of roof vent cover. Until this new procedure is adopted, the NHTSA intends to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.

With respect to State action concerning the conformity of motor vehicles and equipment to motor vehicle safety standards, we are currently reviewing our position in light of a suit brought last month against the State of Pennsylvania. We shall advise you when a conclusion has been reached.

ID: nht95-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bonnie Ward -- Eagle County School District RE 50J

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/2/95 LETTER FROM BONNIE WARD TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmation that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standards.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bonnie Ward -- Eagle County School District RE 50J

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/2/95 LETTER FROM BONNIE WARD TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Ward:

This responds to your May 2, 1995, letter following up on information provided you by Charles Hott and Leon DeLarm of this agency, concerning the safety of school buses and "over-the-road type coaches" (e.g., Greyhound-type buses). You ask for confirmat ion that our safety standards for school buses "are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches."

That statement is correct. Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to vehicles according to vehicle type. We have FMVSSs that apply to "buses," and those that apply to "school buses." Since a "school bus" is a type of "bus" under our regulations, a new school bus must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to "school buses" in addition to those that apply to "buses." A new over-the-road coach would have to meet our "bus" standards, but not our "school bus" standar ds.

We would like to emphasize the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. A school bus meeting the school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most co mfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some over-the-road coaches, but it has safety features that the coaches lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exit s that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when making school transportation decisions.

For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet that gives a brief description of the FMVSSs, and an information sheet that explains how you can obtain copies of our standards.

If you other questions on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 22874.ztv

Mr. Markus Evans
PMA-Racine
Racine Operations
1733 90^th Street
Sturtevant, WI 53177





Dear Mr. Evers:

This is in reply to your fax of March 13, 2001, to Dave Coleman of this agency asking for an interpretation regarding whether it is necessary for a certain product to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

You state that Putzmeister is "one of the world's largest manufacturer of truck-mounted concrete pumps." You ask whether a contemplated model would need to be equipped with an anti-lock braking system (ABS), or "can it be regarded as construction equipment without need to be equipped with ABS?"

Your question indicates that you are familiar with the long-standing interpretations of this agency that mobile construction equipment vehicles are not motor vehicles which must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We are currently reviewing our position in this matter. I enclose a copy of a letter that we sent on March 21, 2001, to the Colorado State Patrol, as the latest expression of our opinion.

In brief, our interpretations have been in compliance with a Federal District Court decision of 1978. We are now concerned that mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment that the Court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. A later Supreme Court decision may provide us with a basis for deciding that mobile construction vehicles are, in fact, motor vehicles. If we decide that they are motor vehicles, your planned product might have to be manufactured with ABS and to comply with all other relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well.

However, we have not yet undertaken the analysis needed to address the issue. This means that your planned product need not be equipped with ABS. In the event that we decide that mobile construction equipment vehicles are motor vehicles, we will announce it publicly, and would establish an effective date that will accommodate the realities of manufacturing mobile construction equipment.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:571
d.4/19/01