ID: 07-007036as 201 armrest

ID: 77-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Calvin Burkhart; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1977, requesting that the period for submission of comments to the Federal Register notice proposing rules for determining the manufacturer of multistage automobiles (42 FR 9040; February 14, 1977) be extended for at least forty-five days. The comment closing date established in the notice is March 9, 1977.

According to 49 CFR Part 553.19, petitions to extend the period for comments must be received by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration not later than 10 days before the expiration of the comment period specified in the notice. Since Chrysler's petition was received on March 2, only 7 days before the comment closing date specified in the notice, it was not a timely submission.

The agency wishes to emphasize the importance of issuing without delay the rules governing the identity of the manufacturer of multistage automobiles for purposes of Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.). The final rule establishing fuel economy standards applicable to nonpassenger automobiles manufactured in model year 1979 should be issued in the immediate future. It is essential that the individual responsible for complying with those standards be clearly specified.

A meeting with Chrysler representatives has been scheduled for Friday, March 11, 1977, at Chrylser's request. The agency will be pleased to discuss any issues involved in the NPRM. However, it must be pointed out that analysis of comments and action on the NPRM will continue without delay after the comment closing date. As stated in the notice, comments field after the closing date will, to the extent possible, be considered.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 1, 1977

The Honorable John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Docket FE 77-02; Notice 1

This letter is in regards to your NPRM of February 14, 1977 concerning Multistage Automobile Fuel Economy Regulations published in the Federal Register as Notice 1 of Docket FE 77-02.

Upon reviewing this notice, we have determined that this regulation could have broad implications regarding our ability to manufacture and market our future incomplete vehicles. It also would have an impact on the manner by which we certify and label incomplete light-duty trucks for emissions and fuel economy purposes and possibly presents some timing requirements that cannot be achieved by Chrysler.

We, therefore, request that a meeting be held at NHTSA to discuss this NPRM further and that the comment closing date be extended for at least forty-five days.

Michael W. Grike Office of the General Attorney

CC: KAREN DYSON -- OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ID: 11295ADRN

Charles A. Grandy, Esq.
Baker & Daniels
300 North Meridian Street
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204-1782

Dear Mr. Grandy:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that OEM passenger car wheel manufacturers have no certification responsibilities.

In your letter, you explain that your client is "an automobile wheel manufacturer that exports wheels to certain automobile manufacturers in the United States to be used in the production of passenger cars." You state your belief that your client does not have to certify its wheels, since neither Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims, nor 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, "appears to apply to automobile wheels and we find no other Safety Standards applicable to automobile wheels."

You are correct that Standard No. 110 does not apply to your client's product. A motor vehicle wheel is comprised of a wheel rim and wheel disc. While Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements for passenger car rims (section S4.4), it is a "vehicle" standard with which the completed vehicle must comply, rather than an "equipment" standard for wheel components. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not your client, would be responsible for certifying compliance with this standard.

With regard to Standard No. 211, we wish to clarify an issue about the applicability of the standard. Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to passenger car equipment. S4, Requirements, of the standard states:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections that extend beyond the plane that is tangent to the outboard edge of the wheel rim at all points around its circumference. ***

Standard No. 211 defines "winged projection" in S3.2, and shows an example of a "winged projection" in Figure 1.

Your letter does not provide enough information to enable us to determine with certainty whether your client's wheels comprise components subject to Standard No. 211. The term "wheel discs" used in S4 typically refers to a component that is a part of a wheel in the same manner as a center-mounted wheel nut or hub cap. Your client's wheels may or may not include such components.

Please note that NHTSA is considering rescinding Standard No. 211, based on our tentative conclusion that it is unnecessarily design-restrictive. (60 FR 31947, June 19, 1995.) The public comment period closed on August 3, 1995. NHTSA is reviewing the public comments and expects to make a final decision on the matter in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:110#211 d:1/30/96

ID: nht89-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRAU MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: TELEFAX DATED 09/06/89 FROM MARGRET SCHMOCK -- ROBERT BOSCH TO R. VAN IDERSTINE -- NHTSA RE HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMP

TEXT: Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, 1989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"1. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of s pecial tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitat ion is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure 10 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov. 82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November 1982 version of SAE J186 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is J186a, September 1977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functio ning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

ID: 2110y

Frau Margret Schmock
Robert Bosch GMBH Abt. K2/ELE2

W. Germany FAX Number 07121/35-1792

Dear Frau Schmock:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 6, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp.

"l. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that "the bulb" shall be replaceable without the use of special tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitation is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure l0 must not be exceeded.

"2. SAE J186 Nov.82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?"

It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November l982 version of SAE Jl86 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is Jl86a, September l977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification; that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)).

"3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?"

No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources.

"4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?"

The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functioning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:ll/6/89

ID: nht88-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT J. KAUFMAN -- GINGOLD, KAUFMAN & CHAIKEN

TITLE: GK&C FILE # 1012-271

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 1-4-88, FROM ROBERT J. KAUFMAN, TO NHTSA-DOT

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning the advice I gave to a company called Auto Accessories, Inc., with respect to the installation of that company's armrests in Volvo 240 automobiles. More specifically, on behalf of your client, a Volvo deale rship, you seek clarification of that advice and request copies of any information, e.g., tests or studies, regarding the armrests. I appreciate your client's concern for safety. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of my November 18, 1987 lett er to that company, in which the advice was provided. I have also enclosed a copy of the armrest installation instructions that were proposed by Auto Accessories and discussed in my response.

Based on your reading of a letter from Auto Accessories to Volvo dealers (enclosed with your letter), you concluded that the armrest installation procedure "ostensibly was either approved, mandated, or suggested by the Department of Transportation." As y ou will see from my November 1987 letter, the Department did not take any of those actions.

This Department has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to approve or endorse any items of motor vehicle equipment or installation procedures therefor. Instead, the Safety Act puts the responsibi lity on manufacturers to certify that their products comply with the applicable requirements (15 U.S.C. 1403), and obliges manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative any devices or elemen ts of design in vehicles that were installed in compliance with applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A)).

In keeping with this statutory scheme, this agency did not make a determination in the November 1987 letter or on any other occasion that a dealer following the proposed installation instructions would or would

not render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. The agency makes such determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Instead, my November 18 letter pointed out the element of design that might be rendered inop erative by installing the armrests, and advised Auto Accessories as the manufacturer to carefully examine its instructions to determine whether or not following them would result in a "render inoperative" violation. It appears from the Auto Accessories letter to dealers that that company believes the installation of its armrest would not result in any violations.

Our advice to dealers is essentially the same as the advice we gave to Auto Accessories. Dealers should examine the instructions to determine whether following them would render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other stand ard. You may wish to contact Auto Accessories to learn more about the basis for its apparent belief that the installation of its armrest will not violate any requirements of the Safety Act.

As for the tests and studies you requested, again, because of our statutory scheme, we have not conducted any regarding the armrest or its installation. We would do so only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 2657o

Robert J. Kaufman, Esq.
Gingold, Kaufman & Chaiken
400 Perimeter Center Terrace, N.E.
Suite 720
Atlanta, GA 30346-1234

Re: GK&C File # 1012-271

Dear Mr. Kaufman:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the advice I gave to a company called Auto Accessories, Inc., with respect to the installation of that company's armrests in Volvo 240 automobiles. More specifically, on behalf of your client, a Volvo dealership, you seek clarification of that advice and request copies of any information, e.g., tests or studies, regarding the armrests. I appreciate your client's concern for safety. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of my November 18, 1987 letter to that company, in which the advice was provided. I have also enclosed a copy of the armrest installation instructions that were proposed by Auto Accessories and discussed in my response.

Based on your reading of a letter from Auto Accessories to Volvo dealers (enclosed with your letter), you concluded that the armrest installation procedure "ostensibly was either approved, mandated, or suggested by the Department of Transportation." As you will see from my November 1987 letter, the Department did not take any of those actions.

This Department has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to approve or endorse any items of motor vehicle equipment or installation procedures therefor. Instead, the Safety Act puts the responsibility on manufacturers to certify that their products comply with the applicable requirements (15 U.S.C. 1403), and obliges manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative any devices or elements of design in vehicles that were installed in compliance with applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In keeping with this statutory scheme, this agency did not make a determination in the November 1987 letter or on any other occasion that a dealer following the proposed installation instructions would or would not render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. The agency makes such determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Instead, my November 18 letter pointed out the element of design that might be rendered inoperative by installing the armrests, and advised Auto Accessories as the manufacturer to carefully examine its instructions to determine whether or not following them would result in a "render inoperative" violation. It appears from the Auto Accessories letter to dealers that that company believes the installation of its armrest would not result in any violations.

Our advice to dealers is essentially the same as the advice we gave to Auto Accessories. Dealers should examine the instructions to determine whether following them would render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other standard. You may wish to contact Auto Accessories to learn more about the basis for its apparent belief that the installation of its armrest will not violate any requirements of the Safety Act.

As for the tests and studies you requested, again, because of our statutory scheme, we have not conducted any regarding the armrest or its installation. We would do so only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA d:2/18/88

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: aiam0613

Dear Mrs. Hicks: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1971, in which you as certain questions relating to 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' (GVWR) as it would apply to our regulations, 49 CFR 567 and 568. Our requirement that certain weight ratings be applied to a label by vehicle manufacturers is a regulation and not a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; Gross vehicle weight rating as defined in S 568 of the regulation 'means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' This was further clarified in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1971, 36 FR 14583, 'To preclude the possibility of understating a vehicle's GVWR, however, the certification regulation is herewith amended to provide that the stated GVWR shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' Unloaded vehicle weight has been defined as '. . . the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants,' 36 FR 2511.; From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit o GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the gross axle weight ratings (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.; Good engineering practice would dictate that weight ratings be based o the weakest component in the system regardless of what it, the weakest component, might be. Of course, weight distribution is one of the factors that must be considered in making these calculations. In the example you have cited, if a manufacturer supplied a rear axle on his vehicle with a stated axle weight rating of 13,000 pounds with tires on the axle having a sum total rating of something less he would be overstating the GAWR of a particular axle on his certification label. GVWR's should not be greater than the total tire capacity or as stated before the sum of the gross axle weight ratings.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht93-7.23

DATE: October 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/93 from Margret Schmock von Ohr to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8841)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

You ask now whether "the combination plastic + paint" has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule.

S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify . that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances.

Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption.

You have asked that this request be treated "as a confidential business

information." We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request.