ID: nht87-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David A. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 48091

Dear Mr. White:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking this agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that pr ovision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.

You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, the S567.4 locatons are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door , opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.

You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to place the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, inst alling the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your co mpany's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 17, 1986

Administration of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., LLV Division would like to request approval of an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck to be manufactured for the U.S. Post Office. The locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4 are not practical for the following reasons:

1. The vehicle has sliding side doors making the hinge pillar, door latch post, and door edge too small and irregularly shaped to accept a label.

2. A label placed on the inward facing side of the side door would be covered up by the vehicle structure when the door is opened.

3. The instrument panel is too small to accept a label.

Grumman Allied Industries proposes to locate the label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel. This bulkhead is located behind the driver between the cab and load compartment. The bulkhead is a three piece assembly consisting of a cent er sliding door and two fixed panels. The door slides to the right when opened. The certification label will be in view from the drivers area without moving any vehicle item. I am enclosing a copy of drawing 85616200 to show the location we are proposing .

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer DAW/sm 03/14/87

ID: nht87-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- Travelite Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/12/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mary Fulton (Std. 108); 1/12/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Fred E. Maynard

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman Travelite Division Pathway, Ltd. BOX 195 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providing information about the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

I enclose copies of two recent agency interpretations on electronic message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried cen ter highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States there the display will be sold and operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(See 5/12/86 and 1/12/87 NHTSA letters to Mary Fulton and Fred E. Maynard

Re: Pathway Limited

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1987, regarding the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

Enclosed with this letter, you will find the following:

1. A letter from the Company's engineers, explaining certain material features of the display, and

2. Drawings of the display and the handheld keyboard which is used to activate the display.

It should be pointed out that the display can be read from directly behind the vehicle, but cannot be read from the side. You should also be aware that the handheld keyboard only activates the display, and does not program messages.

I am also enclosing the 16 messages with which it is currently intended that every chip will be programmed.

If you require anything further, please advise.

Sincerely,

PATHWAY LTD. Joe Rutman

February 9, 1987

Mr. Joe Rutman President Travelite Division of Pathway, Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER OF INQUIRY

In regards to the questions raised in the aforementioned letter:

1. light emitted by the brake-light portion of the display will pass through the message portion, as the light sources for both portions originate from the same printed circuit board. Red L.E.D.'s are used for the brake-light and yellow L.E.D.'s are used for the message display.

2. The brake-light circuit overrides the message display by disabling and blanking out any message displayed at the time the brake-light is turned on.

I hope the above answers are satisfactory. If you have any other questions, feel free to call.

FRANK HOCKEBORN, PROPRIETOR

SEE DIAGRAMS...

TELLITE MESSAGES

1. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES LEFT.

2. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES RIGHT.

3. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS...THANK YOU.

4. PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW SO CLOSE...THANK YOU.

5. I AM OUT OF GASOLINE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

6. DEAD BATTERY...I NEED A JUMPER.

7. I HAVE A FLAT TIRE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

8. MY CAR WILL NOT START...NEED HELP.

9. SORRY.

10. PLEASE SEND A WRECKER...THANK YOU.

11. MY CAR IS STUCK...PLEASE SEND HELP.

12. GO AROUND...I AM WAITING FOR A PARKING PLACE...THANK YOU.

13. THANK YOU.

14. CAUTION...SLOWING TRAFFIC...ROAD REPAIRS? ACCIDENT?

15. ILLNESS...HELP...HELP...HELP.

16. PLEASE CALL POLICE...SEND AN AMBULANCE.

ID: nht87-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jim Ross

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Jim Moss President, Auto Mark Corp. 3901 Atkinson Drive Suite 220 Louisville, Kentucky 40218

Dear Mr. Moss:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Barbara Kurtz of our Office of Market Incentives. In your letter, you posed several questions about a stencil your company would like to offer to direct importers for marking their vehicle parts in compliance with 49 C FR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to briefly explain the parts marking requirements of Pact 541 as they apply to direct importers.

Direct importers are required to inscribe an identifying number on the specified parts for each passenger car subject to Part 541 that they import: @541.5(a). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must be the original vehicle identification numbe r assigned to the car by its original manufacturer in the country where the car was assembled or produced: @54l.5(b) (3). The identifying number inscribed on the parts must satisfy the size and style requirements specified for vehicle certification label s: @54l.5(c). Finally, the identifying number inscribed on the parts must comply with the three requirements of @54l.5(d) (2). These requirements are:

1. Removal or alteration of any portion of the number must visibly alter the appearance of the section of the vehicle part on which the identification is marked:

2. The number must be placed on each part in a location that is visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle: and

3. The number must be placed entirely within the target area specified by the original manufacturer for that part.

There are no other requirements for marking direct importers' vehicles. Once the direct importer determines that its vehicle complies with these requirements, it certifies that compliance by affixing a label to the vehicle, as specified in 49 CFR S567.4( k). This certification label must be affixed to the vehicle before it is imported into the United States.

To respond to your specific questions, you stated that you advise direct importers to leave your stencil on each part after etching it. You then posed three questions:

1. Must the initials DOT appear on the stencil?

ANSWER: No. Part 541 does not require that the DOT symbol appear as a part of or in conjunction with inscribed markings on parts.

2. May we leave our name (logo) printed on the stencil? ANSWER: Yes. Using the same principles we have applied in the case of labeling requirements in our safety standards, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specifi ed parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on th e parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave your company name on the stencil.

3. Do you have any suggestions or objections to offer?

ANSWER: Our only concern is that direct imports comply with the requirements of Part 541. Assuming that your stencil is a means for direct importers to comply with those requirements, we have no additional advice to offer.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Noel H. McMormick

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager Sentry Insurance 1800 North Point Drive Stevens Point, WI 54481

Dear Mr. McCormick:

This responds to your letters to our Administrator, concerning whether your company should be subject to 49 CFR Part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements, for the reports due not later than October 25, 1987. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explai n our rulemaking procedures to you.

As you know, we publish annual amendments to the listing of insurance companies subject to the reporting requirements of Part 544. These amendments are made in accordance with the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act; 5 U.S. C. 553. Those provisions require the agency to publish a proposed listing of insurers subject to the reporting requirements, and give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposal. After all comments are received, the agency evaluates the comments and publishes a final listing.

On May 28, 1987, we published a proposed listing of insurers that would be subject to the reporting requirements for the October, 1987 reports: 52 FR 19898 (copy enclosed). As you will see, this proposed listing identifies your company as one that would be subject to the reporting requirements. The comment period for this proposal closes on July 13, 1987. The agency will consider all comments received as of that date in preparing the final listing of insurance companies required to file a report in Octo ber, 1987.

Pursuant to normal informal rulemaking procedures, your first letter on this subject was treated as a comment on the proposed listing and put in the public docket for this rulemaking action, along with any other comments we receive on the proposed listin g. In your most recent letter, you stated that, in a telephone conversation with agency staff, you "did not receive an adequate explanation" of why your company would be subject to these reporting requirements. Therefore, you stated that your company doe s not plan to file an October, 1987 report. Agency staff cannot offer any opinions about what the final agency decision on this matter will be before the decision has been made. No final decision can be made until all comments have been considered and th e statutory provisions and past agency positions reexamined. This procedure will begin after July 13, 1987, when the comment period closes.

You should be aware of the fact that if your company is included in the final listing of subject insurance companies and you do not file the required report, this agency has authority to seek both a civil penalty and injunctive relief against your compan y' pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2028.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 27, 1987 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

RE: INSURER REPORT - 1986 AUTOMOBILE THEFT CLAIMS

This letter is a follow-up to my letter of May 6. 1987 and our phone conversation of May 27, 1987. We appreciate your effort in reviewing and concurring that our premium writings on a countrywide basis are 0.984%

We have been informed that A. M. Best has rounded this percentage to 1%, and thus in the Federal Register, Sentry will be listed as one of the companies required to submit data for the report due October 25, 1987.

In my May 27 phone conversation, I did not receive an adequate explanation as to how .984 can be rounded to 1%. Without that explanation. our interpretation is that our percentage is less than 1%. Therefore, Sentry does not plan to submit data for the Oc tober, 1987 report.

Sincerely yours,

Noel H. McCormick Personal Lines Coordination Manager SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY

ID: nht87-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Wagstaff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas Wagstaff, Esq. Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi Five Crown Center 2480 Pershing Road P.O. Box 419777 Kansas City, MO 64141-6777

Dear Mr. Wagstaff:

This letter responds to your inquiry of April 27, 1987. In your letter, you state that you represent a client called Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, and further state that your client is considering a recall of four models of a product called "SureFoot Safet y Walk Ramps." You do not state the nature of the problem that leads your client to consider a recall.

You enclose a customer brochure describing the ramps, providing specifications for them, and explaining their use. The brochure shows that the walk ramp attaches to the rear of a truck trailer, and is used to unload cargo from the trailer. You ask whethe r your client's recall is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of 15 U.S.C. S1391 et seq., and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577.

Section 1419 of Title 15 U.S.C. defines certain terms used in the context of notice-and-recall campaigns. Among those terms is "replacement equipment," there defined as "motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) other than original equipment." The term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined further in 15 U.S.C. S1391 to include "any accessory...to the motor vehicle." In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible p urpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it may appear that the safety ramp has purposes other than use with a motor vehicle, the promotional literature you sent specifies truck/trailer deck heights, and illustrates the ramp's use with a truck trailer. Roll-o-Matic apparently promotes the safety ramp for ordinary users in the business of cargo unloading. (Note that although a person may use this product only when the vehicle is not operating, the agency has the authority to regulate both the operational and nonoperational safety of vehic les.

For these reasons, NHTSA would classify your client's product under SS1419 and 1391 as motor vehicle replacement equipment (specifically as an "accessory"), and your client as a manufacturer of such equipment.

Because 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577 apply to "manufacturers" of "replacement equipment," your client is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of these regulations, and incurs certain obligations with respect to motor vehicle safety related defect s under Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 21, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 1519 Federal Express Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Defect and Non-Compliance Notice and Reporting Requirements

Dear Ms. Jones:

Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary & Lombardi law firm represents Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, a Kansas City based company. Between the dates December, 1985, and March, 1987, Roll-O-Matic manufactured and sold four models of "SureFoot Safety Walk Ramps." Enc losed herein is a customer brochure describing the ramps, their usage and specifications.

Roll-O-Matic is currently considering a recall of all these model ramps. Roll-O-Matic would replace all the ramps recalled.

Roll-O-Matic requests an official opinion from your office a; to whether a recall of these ramps is subject to the reporting and notification requirements of 15 USC S1391 et seq.. 49 C.F.R. S573. and 49 C.F.R. S577.

We would appreciate as prompt a response as possible.

If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly your

Thomas W. Wagstaff TWW/rmg

Enclosure

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Marsha Jay

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Marsha Jay Administrative Assistant Texas Automobile Dealers Association P. O. Box 1028 Austin, TX 78767-1028

Dear Ms. Jay:

This responds to your June 5, 1987, letter on behalf of a member of your association who wishes to sell a 12-passenger van to a school. In a June telephone call, you asked also about our requirements for persons reducing the passenger capacity of a new b us to nine or fewer.

As explained below, a 12-passenger van sold to a school is a "school bus." The dealer who sells such a van to a school must therefore sell a certified school bus.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to establish safety standards for new motor vehicles. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus ," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. A new "school bus" must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses, and also those specifically applicable to "school bus," including Standard 217, Bus Window Reten tion and Release, Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity. The Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensue that the nonconforming bus for school bus use will subject the sell er to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You specifically asked about our safety belt requirements for 12-passenger school buses. Safety Standard No. 222 requires safety belts only for passengers on each school bus with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. The Driver's s eating position in any bus, regardless of its GVWR, must have a safety belt under a separate standard for occupant crash protection. Since you are interested in reviewing the standards which apply to small school buses, I have enclosed an information she et that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

Federal law does not prohibit a dealer from removing seats from a 12-passenger bus, However, Federal law sets limits on how the alteration may be made. A dealer restricting the passenger capacity of a new bus to 9 or fewer before the vehicle is sold or d elivered to the owner is considered as "alterer" under our regulations. (49 CFR S567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles.) Such an alteration changes the vehicle's classification to that of a multipurpose vehicle (MPV). As a result, the person modifying the new vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would entail the installation of safety belts at all seating positions.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Deirdre Hom NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 400 7th St. S. W. Washington D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

I spoke to someone in your office recently regarding Federal Regulations concerning the use of multi-purpose passenger vehicles being used to transport children. One of our dealers would like to sell twelve-passenger vans which would be used to transport school children. He has questioned the rules and regulations regarding the following:

1. Seat Belts

2. Other Safety Standards

3. Seller liability, provided that the vehicles comply with Federal Standards.

I will relay this information to our dealer as soon as I receive it from you. Your help in this matter is very much appreciated.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Marsha Jay Administrative Assistant

ID: nht87-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David M. Romansky -- President, Atract Ad

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (OCC 409); 11/19/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Roger M. Cox (Std. 108); 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Bob Sandblom (A33); 5/18/89 letter from Bob Sandblom to DOT (OCC 3584)

TEXT:

Mr. David M. Romansky President Atract Ad 3400 Hwy 427 Sanford, FL 32771

Dear Mr. Romansky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1987 asking for our "evaluation and comments" on your proposed product. This product is an adhesive label that is applied to the center highmounted stop lamp. When the brakes are applied the words "buckle-up" become visible to the driver of the car behind.

Our comments relate to the acceptability of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and its relationship to State laws. Th e simplicity of the decal is such that it may be readily applied by anyone with no special expertise or tools. There will be no violation of the Act if the decal is applied by the vehicle owner. However, a vehicle in use is subject to the laws of each St ate in which it is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws governing partial obscuration of the center lamp. We suggest you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 2 0036 for further information. There is at least the theoretical possibility that it may raise a question of liability, or provide a defense, in accident suits involving rear end collisions.

Questions of compliance would be raised were the decal applied by motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, either before or after sale of the vehicle. In essence, a new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards at the time of its first sale, and the persons listed above must do nothing during the life of the car to affect the compliance of a device installed in accordance with a safety standard. If the decal reduces the effective proj ected luminous area of a lamp to less than 4 1/2 square inches, interferes with light output at any of 13 specified photometric test points, or renders the signal not visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degree s to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the lamp will not conform. A person creating a noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to 000 for each violation.

If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 11, 1987

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Counsel NCC-01 National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C.

Dear Mrs. Jones,

I have been directed to you by your Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, by C. V. Rice. Enclosed you will find a product we plan to manufacture and distribute in the United States to be applied to the collision avoidance light.

When this decal is installed on the face of the collision avoidance light lense, upon applying the brake, the message "buckle-up" becomes visible to the driver of the car directly behind it. Thus, reminding them to be sure that their seat belts are buckl ed up properly.

We would like to have your evaluation and comments on this product as our intentions are to promote public safety by the use of this product.

An immediate response would be greatly appreciated as we are working with several state programs at the present time. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, David M. Romansky President

Enclosure/ps

ID: 86-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam Humes -- General Manager, Marquis Coachcrafters

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning the effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.

In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permits convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.

Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers must begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Steve Oesch -- Office Chief Concel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch:

The increasing popularity of convertibles in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice.

Marquis Coachcrafters manufacture convertible conversions on new O.E.M. front wheel drive Cadillac Sedan De Villes. As a manufacturer of new vehicles, my question to you pretains to Standard 208 and 209, Title #49 of the U.S. Code. Standard 208 states that a seat belt must cover 95% of a persons body to meet Federal standards. But in Standard 209, paragraph 54.1.1.2 states that any automobile that is open aired or a convertible has the option of paragraph 4.1.2.3.2. This option states that Type 1 (lap belt) or Type 2 (combo lap and shoulder) conforms to Federal safety laws 208 and 209.

The information I obtained was from a Mr. Tom Grubbs. He may be reached at the following number. (202) 426-2807.

Thank you for your time, consideration and reply.

Your truly,

Adam Humes General Manager -- MARQUIS COACHCRAFTERS

ID: 86-6.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: LeRoy E. Mueller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Richfield, WI 53076

Dear Mr. Mueller:

Don Vierimaa of Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association has asked us to reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you inquired whether a proposed rear lighting system for trailers "meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors." We understand, from your conversation on October 7 with Taylor Vinson of this Office that the trailer in question is a flat bed one, intended to tip forward to facilitate the loading and unloading of cargo.

The requirements for trailer lighting for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table I lists the required equipment items, and Table II establishes the location for them. With one exception, the system depicted by your Drawing A60686 indicates that the required equipment will be furnished in accordance with Table I. The exception is the apparent failure to provide clearance lamps. These lamps, and the three-lamp identification lamp cluster are required for wide trailers. In our view, it will be necessary to mount additional lamps on the rear of your proposed trailer to provide this function. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps, and clearance lamps and identification lamps.

However, the location of the lamps as shown in Drawing A60686 does not appear to meet the requirements of Table II. that they be located "on the rear", or the visibility requirements discussed below. The identification lamps and reflectors are located under the platform and 19 inches from its rear edge, while the combination stop-tail-turn signal lamps are 22 inches from the rear edge of the platform. We therefore call your attention to paragraph S4.3.1.1. of Standard No. 108, and the appropriate photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 and SAE standards incorporated by reference for rear lighting equipment. In general, vehicle equipment shall not prevent photometric compliance by rear lighting devices, which shall be located so that at least two square inches of lens area are visible at angles of 45 degrees to the left, and 15 degrees to the right of the centerpoint of the lens. However, if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with visibility requirements, auxiliary lamps meeting the visibility requirements shall be provided.

We are mindful that the configuratIons of certain trailers are such that compliance problems may arise that are not easily solved. I enclose a recent letter to a manufacturer who had an interpretative question similar to yours, with the thought it may be of help to you.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Don:

I am enclosing three (3) copies of our drawing number A60686 showing the proposed light system on the rear portion of a trailer which we intend to market.

We would like to have you forward the drawings to the proper individuals in the Department of Transportation who could give us a ruling to whether or not this system meets the regulations governing lights and reflectors. The lights and reflectors are all Class A and meet all D.O.T. requirements.

Thank you for your cooperation In this matter.

Very truly yours, WISCONSIN TRAILER CO., INC.

LeRoy E. Mueller President

LEM/pb Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHICS

ID: 86-6.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Kunst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kunst Deutsche Tecalemit Deutsche Tecalemit GmbH P.O.B. 120128 D-4800 Bielefeld 12

Dear Mr. Kunst:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You enclosed drawings of a brake hose end fitting and a vacuum brake hose assembly you manufacture, and asked whether the assembly would conform to the constriction requirements of S9.2.1. In our opinion, the answer is no.

Your letter did not clearly state the size of the inside diameter of the hose used in assembly 90 28B 758. That dimension is necessary in order to ascertain whether constriction requirements are met. We believe, however, based on the markings at the bottom your diagram -i.e., "TUBE 12.5x2.0 DIN 73 37B" - that the brake hose has an outside diameter of 12.5 mm, and a wall thickness of 2.0 mm. The hose would therefore have a nominal inside diameter of 8.5 mm. (If our assumptions are incorrect, please do not hesitate to contact us.) *

Paragraph S9.2.1 of Standard No. 106 states:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly shall be not less than 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the hose if for light duty.

To pass the constriction test of S9.2.1, a vacuum brake hose assembly (heavy duty) must have an inside diameter that is at least 75 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose. This, if the nominal inside diameter of the hose is 8.5 mm, the inside diameter of the assembly must be not less than 6.38 mm at any point. If the assembly is intended for light duty, under the 70 percent requirement its inside diameter must be not less than 5.95 mm at any point.

You stated that the inside diameter of end fitting 90 279 346 is 4 mm + 0.5 mm. Because of this size, the part of the fitting which is attached to the hose would not meet constriction requirements of S9.2.1 for either light or heavy duty applications.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington DC 20590 USA

Subj.: Federal Safety Standards MVSS 106 Paragraph S 9.2.1, Constriction -

Dear Sirs,

In the a. m. matter we wrote to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, Mr. Stanley R. Scheiner. Today we have received the information from Mr. Scheiner that your office is responsible in this case.

Herewith we would like to give you the following information:

In conjunction with a development for General Motors, we urgently require your interpretation of paragraph S 9.2.1, regarding the constriction of the size of any section of a vacuum brake hose assembly.

As you can learn from the enclosed drawing information, the end fitting 90 279 346 with an inside diameter of 4 mm + 0,5 mm tolerance will be used for the brake hose assembly, drwg. no 90 288 758.

Please confirm that this design comply with paragraph S 9.2.1.

We would deeply appreciate your short term reply.

Yours faithfully

DEUTSCHE TECALEMIT GMBH i.v. Kunst

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS