ID: 86-6.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alvin A. Leach

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alvin A. Leach Manager Corporate Transportation Services Carolina Power & Light Co. PO BOX 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Leach:

Thank you for your letter of September 5, 1986, to Administrator Steed concerning the safety belt installation requirements for heavy trucks. The Administrator has asked my office to respond since you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked whether lap/shoulder safety belts are required in a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. 54.3 of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed, sets out the requirements for such trucks. S4.3 permits a manufacturer to install either a lap safety belt, referred to as a Type 1 belt in the standard, or a lap/shoulder belt, referred to as a Type 2 belt, in a heavy truck. At the present time, we do not have any plans to require lap/shoulder belts in heavy trucks. We are taking steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems in heavy vehicles. As explained in the attached notice, the agency is currently considering several changes to the standard which would make it easier to use safety belts in heavy vehicles. We expect to issue a final rule on this subject later this year.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20590

Reference: Seat Belt Requirements for Trucks with G.V.W.R. of More Than 10,000 Pounds per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Dear Ms. Stead:

I have been asked to respond to a question from one of our employees about seat belt requirements for trucks in the 20,000 pounds G.V.W. range. His question was "Why aren't our medium duty (20,000 lb. G.V.W.) trucks purchased with lap and shoulder belts like those required in cars?"

Apparently they are not required by Standard No. 208 and are not offered by the manufacturers.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me if our interpretation of Standard No. 208 is correct. I would also like to know if there are any plans to require lap and shoulder belts in this size vehicle.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Alvin A. Leach, Manager Corporate Transportation Services

ID: 86-6.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas MacGregor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas MacGregor Terralab Engineers 3585 Via Terra Salt Lake City UT 84115

Dear Mr. MacGregor:

Thank you for your letter of August 28, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You asked whether the performance requirements of the standard would apply to a propane-fired engine block heater. You explained that the heater has its own fuel system that is independent of the vehicle's fuel system. As explained below, a propane-fired heater would not be covered by Standard No. 301.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements for the fuel system used in certain motor vehicles. The heater you have described apparently does not have any connections to the fuel tank or fuel lines of the vehicle. Instead, the heater has its own propane fuel system. Since the heater is not connected to the vehicle's fuel system, it would not be covered by the standard. Even if the heater were connected to the vehicle fuel system, it would not have to meet the performance requirements of the standard, since it is a propane-fired heater. S3 of Standard No. 301 limits the application of the standard to vehicles that use a fuel with a boiling point above 32o F. Propane has a boiling point below 32o F.

Even though the heater is not covered by the requirements of Standard No. 301, it would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet that describes how our regulations, including those on defect notification and remedy campaigns, apply to equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

28 August 1986

Steve Ashe Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20596

Dear Mr. Ashe:

Per our conversation I am writing to obtain an opinion.

We have been approached to test a propane-fired engine block heater. The propane fuel for the heater is separate and independent of the vehicular fuel system.

While there are standards which cover the test requirements for the heater itself, we need an Opinion which will determine whether impact (crash) and roll-over tests are required per 301, even though the language of 301 excludes LPC since its boiling point is below 32 F.

Also, if the Opinion should state the testing is necessary, would the system have to be tested for each truck and bus style, or would one representative test be acceptable for all installations?

Sincerely

Douglas MacGregor

ID: 86-6.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 209 Reston, VA 22091

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to the importation of motor vehicles and equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You stated your understanding that under 19 C.F.R. l2.8O(b)(l)(iii), the importer of a nonconforming vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an import bond release letter. You asked whether this or any other provision prohibits the lease of a vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter.

Neither this provision nor any other prohibits the leasing of a vehicle during the period prior to issuance of the bond release letter. A sale is generally understood as a transfer of title and possession, whereas a lease involves transfer only of possession. The purpose for the restrictive language in 12.80(b)(l)(iii) is, as you correctly stated, "to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA...could be performed by the importer."

I hope that this answers your question satisfactorily.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I request an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to direct import motor vehicles. Under 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b) (l)(iii), the importer of such a vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an Import bond release letter. Does this or any other provision administered by NHTSA prohibit the lease of an imported vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter? If so, what provision imposes such a restriction?

Under a leasing arrangement, the importer would retain title to the vehicle. By retaining title, the importer would have a degree of control over the vehicle, to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA (i.e., further vehicle modifications or submission of additional compliance information) could be performed by the importer. Based on discussions with your staff, it is my understanding that this residual control by the importer should satisfy NHTSA's concerns which form the basis for the sale-before-release prohibition.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Roger C. Fairchild

RCF:hgc

ID: 8838

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, to school buses you wish to sell to a customer in the United States Virgin Islands. You stated that these buses will be built as right hand drive vehicles with the entrance door located on the left side, since vehicles are driven on the left side of the road in this jurisdiction. You asked whether you can install, on the right side of the bus, the stop signal arm that is required by FMVSS 131. The answer is yes.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, "Safety Act") requires new school buses sold in this country and in the U.S. Virgin Islands to comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. (See, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8) for reference to the Virgin Islands.) Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm "on the left side of the bus." (S5.4) The purpose of this standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the school bus." (S2)

When NHTSA specified that the stop arm must be placed on "the left side of the bus," the agency meant the driver's side. Comments to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preamble of NHTSA's final rule all assumed that the left side of the bus meant the driver's side. (56 FR 20363, 20367). For example, while endorsing the proposed requirement for the stop arm, several commenters stated that an arm is needed near the driver's window. Moreover, S5.4.1(b) states that, for locating the arm, "the top edge of the stop signal arm is parallel to and not more than 6 inches from a horizontal plane tangent to the lower edge of the frame of the passenger window immediately behind the driver's window." (Emphasis added). This provision indicates that the agency assumed that the "left" side is the driver's side. Further, a stop arm would not be needed on the non-traffic side of the vehicle.

Since the left side is not the driver's side for the school buses in question, the agency's general assumption was incorrect. In light of your letter, we will issue a technical amendment of Standard 131 so that S5.4 will require the stop signal arm on the driver's side of the bus. Until the amendment is issued, we will not take enforcement action regarding a manufacturer's locating a right hand drive school bus with a stop signal arm on the bus's driver's side.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:131 d:8/l6/93

ID: nht76-1.46

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: Georgette A. Sears

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 6, 1976, requesting information as to the Federal standards and regulations that are applicable to the manufacture of an "18' pull type horse/stock trailer combination."

Manufacturers of trailers of the type you describe must certify that their product is in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selections and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.120. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 is not effective until August 1, 1976, for the rim marking requirements (S5.2), and September 1, 1976, for the remaining requirements, so trailers manufactured before these times will not have to be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 120.

The procedure for certification is specified in 49 CFR Part 567, and requires the manufacturer to affix a label to his product certifying that it is in compliance with the requirements of applicable Federal regulations. You should check the trailer that you purchase to make certain there is a certification label. Part 567.4(d) specifies that the certification label for trailers shall be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.

There are no Federal regulations concerning the connection of trailers to trucks or other vehicles. Nevertheless, from a safety stand point it is important that you ascertain the hauling capacity of your truck-trailer system in order to avoid overloading that could create potential safety hazards. You should obtain information from the manufacturer concerning the "tongue weight" of the trailer when fully loaded, and relate it to the gross axle weight ratings of your towing vehicle, found on its certification label on the door or door post. The trailer manufacturer may also have further recommendations as to the capacity of the vehicle needed to tow one of his trailers safely.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

EASTERN TURTLE TOP

TO: U.S. Gov't-Dept of Transportation National Transportation Safety Board General Info.

SUBJECT: Trailer Safety Date: Jan. 6, 1976

Gentlemen: I would like to know what Federal Standards apply to the building of an 18' pure type horse/stock trailer combination. I am in the process of ordering one from a company in Ohio (ARK) and want to be certain it is a safe carrier - including the connection to my pick-up truck. Can you help me to ascertain what is considered safest for our personal safety and the safety of others on the road? Thank you. (P.S. This transfer will haul 4-Horses or 6 (11001b) show cattle ----)

Sincerly, Georgette A. Sears

ID: nht76-2.3

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: VIRACON, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Viracon's December 13, 1975, and January 28, 1976, requests for a copy of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and for a discussion of the distinction under NHTSA regulations between installation of a sunroof before and after "original sale of the roof." A copy of Standard No. 216 has already been mailed to Viracon under separate cover.

You suggest that there may be different regulations for installation of a sunroof prior to, and after, the sale of the roof, by which I understand you to mean the sunroof. The NHTSA does not regulate sunroofs as such, but it does regulate the roof strength of most passenger cars (Standard No. 216), and conformity with this standard can be affected by installation of the sunroof.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards. Anyone that modifies a passenger car roof by the addition of your product would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 216 at the time of sale. This would include alterations of this type made to a vehicle that has been certified by the manufacturer (49 CFR Part 567). This prohibition does not apply (except in cases of importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)).

The Act also prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)). This means that these classes of persons may not install one of your products, even after the first retail sale, if the installation takes the vehicle out of conformity with Standard No. 216 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

YOURS TRULY,

VIRACON Inc.

January 28, 1976

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

Attached please find a copy of our letter to you dated December 13, 1975. Since we still have had no reply, may I again ask that you please send us a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Diane Bortle Executive Secretary

VIRACON Inc.

December 13, 1975

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

We are anticipating the manufacture of a laminated glass sunroof in the not-too-distant future. May I ask that you send me a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation? I understand there are different regulations for installation prior to, and after the original sale of the roof.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention.

Randall L. Johnson Executive Vice President

ID: nht90-2.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1990

FROM: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to B. Abernethy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I realize that a change or deviation from Standard # 108 is like changing the Constitution. However, some technical data could aid in your decision. This may be obtained from the Electrical Testing Laboratory.

I have written a proposed variance in your Standard # 108 in my letter to you dated 3/21/90. However I am not accustomed to a committee response.

Enclosed "REGULATION AT ITS BEST" from Automotive Engineering magazine stating the benefits of high mounted stoplamps. Please think further by changing this to an analog response.

If you need further assistance or information, feel free to write; or call me at my new number.

Enclosure

Editorial "Regulation At It's Best" Regular readers of this page will recall that, on occasion, I have criticized the Federal government's regulation of various aspects of the automobile and the automotive industry. So I think it's only fair to pay a compliment to the regulators in Washin gton when they produce a regulation with a clearly outstanding cost-benefit ratio. I refer to the FMVSS No. 108 amendment which requires new passenger cars to be equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp beginning on September 1, 1985.

At the first of this summer's crop of long-lead press previews, I made it a point to follow as many cars as possible which were equipped with this center stoplamp. Even in bright sunlight I found it remarkably effective in getting a driver's immediate a ttention, alerting him to the braking of the car in front. Although I didn't get a chance to try it at night, I imagine it's all the more effective then. Some of its effectiveness may be due to the fact that it's brand-new, I admit, but even after the driving public has become accustomed to it there should be a significant net gain.

SAE Paper 851240 by Digges, Nicholson, and Rouse, titled "The Technical Basis for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp," says that "The long run costs of the center stoplamp are estimated at about $4 per car. The property damage reduction for a complete fle et equipped with these lamps is estimated at $434 million per year. Comparison of the long run costs and

the property damage savings produces a net benefit of almost $400 million per year."

The paper goes on to say that "Field tests have shown that the center high mounted stoplamp is about fifty percent effective in reducing relevant accidents. Based upon analysis, NHTSA estimates that on the order of 900,000 accidents per year would be av oided, and 40,000 injuries would be reduced."

Is this an example of Federal regulation at its best? It think it is, and I tip my hat to the people at NHTSA who produced it.

Larry Givens Editor "Automotive Engineering" July 85 Volume 93, Number 7

ID: 1985-03.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mr. William Pesce; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Pesce

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence of any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.

In addition, Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, also applies to new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.

If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standard No. 104 or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1) (A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.

As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLS.

OCC-0747

Department of Transportation

May 18, 1985 We propose to offer for sale to the public a colored windshield wiper blade.

Our blade attaches to existing windshield wiper arms.

It does not alter in any way the speed or rythem of an operating wondshield wiper.

It is not made of floresent, or as they are called HOT colors nor is it reflective in any way.

We have been unable to find any safty restrictions which would apply to our product. If such restriction do, or do not exist we would appreciate receiving this information by return mail in the envelope provided.

William Pesce B P Origionals

ID: 1985-03.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edward Maloney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Road Bellevue, Nebraska 68005

Dear Mr. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985 concerning the safety belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replaceable buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.

Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 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, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that it is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 17, 1985

Dear Sir,

I wrote you previously 2/8/84 about my problems with Ford Motor Co. substituting a cheap seat belt in my '84 Tempo that became defective, with one from an '84 Escort car which did not even match my decor.

I took them to Small claims court because I could not get satisfaction or any help from anyone. Ford produced a letter in court in which they offered to alter the seat belt by tearing it apart and putting a different buckle on it. I refused them on grounds of safety. I was under the impression that the federal government specified seat belts in cars for safety, and any alteration was a federal violation, as are all other parts of the car that meet safety standards.

A copy is enclosed. If you prosecute Ford, count on me.

Sincerely,

Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Rd. Bellevue, NE 68005

ID: 2782y

Stanley S. Zinner, Esq.
Greene & Zinner, P.C.
202 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601

Re: FMVSS No. 123

Dear Mr. Zinner:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of December 4, l990, requesting an interpretation of section S5.2.4 of 49 CFR 571.123 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. Specifically, you wish an opinion "as to the meaning, purpose, and intent" of that section.

Section S5.2.4 Stands states that "A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you, this requirement was one of the original provisions in Standard No. 123 when it became effective in l974. However, unlike many other requirements in the standard, it was both proposed and adopted without any discussion of its meaning, purpose, and intent in the preambles to both these rulemaking actions other than the bare remark that the notices contained a requirement for stands. Furthermore, in the l6 years that the requirement has been in effect, the agency does not appear to have issued a single legal opinion relating to section S5.2.4.

However, the agency has issued two interpretations of section S5.2.5 which we believe are relevant to an understanding of S5.2.4. In pertinent part, S5.2.5 Footrests states that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use." In a letter of February 16, l982, to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with respect to a proposed footboard design, the then Chief Counsel commented that "We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn." In a letter of October 26, l973, also to American Honda, the then Assistant Chief Counsel commented that S5.2.5 did not require automatic folding but only the direction in which the footrests shall retract "so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward." I enclose a copy of each of these letters for your information. The meaning of S5.2.4 is, we believe, clear and unambiguous: if a stand is left down, it shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground (which includes the roadway) while the motorcycle is moving forward. Because both sections S5.2.4 and S5.2.5 require motorcycle equipment "to fold rearward and upward", we further believe that the purpose and intent of both sections are the same, and that S5.2.4 could be substituted for S5.2.5 in the sentences of the two letters quoted in the preceding paragraph.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:l23 d:12/24/90