ID: 1984-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rivkin Sherman and Levy -- Donald M. Schwentker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Donald M. Schwentker, Esq. Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses, to what you referred to as "semi-rigid" brake tubing. In your letter, you stated your belief that the term "flexible conduit" in FMVSS No. 106 excludes semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic. You requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to concur in your interpretation that the word " flexible" designates a conduit that is "flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle." You also asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube is included in the standard's definition of a brake hose end fitting.

By way of background information, you should be aware that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Your first question asked whether the concept of flexibility is limited solely to conduits designed to flex in operation. The answer is no. The agency has included semi-rigid tubing in the definition of brake hose even if such tubing does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation. In a November 28, 1975 preamble on Standard No. 106 (40 FR 55f65), the agency stated that:

(The functional definition of "brake hose" would be retained. There would thus be no exception for flexible chassis plumbing, even though such tubing is also outside the scope of the traditional conception of brake hose. The NHTSA remains convinced that such tubing, because it invites bending during repairs, should remain within the coverage of the standard.

The agency also explained in a February 26, 1974 preamble (39 FR 7425) that a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in Standard No. 106, because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to the same types of stress. That notice denied petitions requesting that tubing be excluded from the standard.

Under Standard No. 106, therefore, flexible chassis-mounted vacuum brake tubing which transmit or contain the vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes are included in the definition of brake hose.

Your second question asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of a semi-rigid tube is a "brake hose end fitting." Standard No. 106 defines a brake hose end fitting as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." The answer to your question, therefore, depends on whether a particular conduit is a brake hose. If a coupler attaches to a brake hose, then the coupler is a brake hose end fitting subject to FMVSS No. 106.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 15, 1984

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Applicability of FMVSS 106 to Chassis-Mounted Vacuum Brake Tubing

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Brake hose is defined in FMVSS 106 (49 CFR S571.106-74) as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". We interpret the word flexible in the definition to mean a conduit that is flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle. Typically, metal, plastic or polyamide tubing is used for that portion of the brake line that is attached to the vehicle's chassis. Such tubing usually is non-rigid so as to facilitate installation, but, once installed, does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation.

Therefore, it is our understanding that the brake hose requirements of FMVSS 106 apply only to conduits that are designed to be flexible in operation -- that is those linking the brake tubing fitted to the chassis to unsprung parts of the suspension system. But for convenience of installation, the tubing attached to the chassis could be absolutely rigid, and therefore clearly outside of the standard's definition of brake hose. The standard was intended to apply to brake hose required to be flexible in operation, and therefore usually made of rubber. For example, the FMVSS 106 whip test and the ozone resistance test have no real applicability to a relatively stiff plastic or polyamide tube. In fact, the primary concern with such tubing is not ozone, but ultra-violet, and no such durability requirement is specified in FMVSS 106.

In summary, we would like your confirmation of our interpretation that the term flexible conduit as used in the definition of brake hose in FMVSS 106 does not include semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic not designed to flex during normal vehicle operation, nor does the term brake hose end fitting apply to a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube.

A timely response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY

Donald M. Schwentker

DMS:kg

ID: 06-003601as

ID: nht92-9.44

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division, NHTSA; Barry Felrice -- Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Patricia Brescin -- Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Std.; Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Jim Simons -- Plans & Policy, NHTSA; Bob Hellmuth -- Director Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Nick Bilello

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul N. Wagner (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify some questions revolving around the application of F.M.V.S.S. #208 to the light truck industry, primarily those built in MULTIPLE stages, such as van conversions.

Last year, our firm, and others, traveled to the Agency AND worked with the automotive companies to achieve compliance with the dynamic requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #208 for light trucks, for our part in the van and pick-up truck industry. This involved vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

In virtually all instances of communication during 1991 with the Agency, (including public forum contact with individuals such as your Mr. Bob Hellmuth), and the auto companies, the general response was that there would be NO EXTENSION in the application of dynamic testing (F.M.V.S.S. #208) of light trucks with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, effective 9/1/91.

Additionally, after proceeding with body-in-white sled testing, despite finding additional complications hampering the testing effort, our firm filed a petition with the Agency (copy attached), noting these and other problems occurring with light trucks manufactured in multiple stages. The petition itself is self-explanatory; however, it was promptly rejected as being untimely, among other things.

With this information, we proceeded with further sled AND barrier testing for compliance and liability reasons, with the research and testing costing nearly $200,000.00 in aggregate.

Now, five months after the submission of the attached petition, and three months after the Agency's rejection of said document, we have received notification (copy attached) from the trade group R.V.I.A. that indicates an extension is on the horizon.

Thus, in 1991, the general consensus from the Agency, the auto companies, R.V.I.A., N.V.C.A., and others, was that we must comply to the new requirements for all light trucks affected, with no extension possible. Now, in 1992, rumors of a possible extension are confirmed by the attached correspondence from R.V.I.A.

Please do not take this letter as a rejection of the safety aspects of F.M.V.S.S. #208, but as one of frustration of market perception. The problem at hand is not an extension, but the ultimate market confusion that exists, due to rumors and conflicting correspondence such as that enclosed.

One fair question that we believe we have is, will there or will there not be an extension of the F.M.V.S.S. #208 light truck requirements?? A timely response would be most helpful to curb the current market confusion.

There are many firms, such as Mark III Industries, and clients we work with, who have effectively put their compliance programs together in order to meet with the Agency's direction last year regarding F.M.V.S.S. #208. Many companies have hastily, but effectively, put their costly compliance programs in place, while others chose to complain and groan about F.M.V.S.S. #208, while ignoring its true safety attributes.

Arguments about F.M.V.S.S. #208 regarding light trucks can be presented at length, but what cannot be acceptable is confusion in the market regarding the status of this regulation.

We will not attempt to debate the merit of dynamic requirements for light trucks, nor will we argue over which trade group, if any, truly represents the van and truck conversion industry. We do believe, however, that because of our costly, good faith effort toward F.M.V.S.S. #208 compliance, we are entitled to a response concerning any extension of time on the above issue.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment (memorandum)

RVIA Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 - 1896 Preston White Drive - Reston, Virginia 22090-0999 Telephone (703)620-6003 - Telefax (703)620-5071

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 17, 1992 TO: RVIA Members with 208 Interest FROM: Bruce A. Hopkins RE: NHTSA/RVIA Meeting - January 14, 1992

Automotive company representatives and the members of RVIA's FMVSS 208 Task Force and its technical subcommittee, met with key policy and enforcement officials of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to

discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on January 14 in Washington, DC.

RVIA requested the meeting to ask NHTSA officials to consider making effective dates for future amendments to FMVSS later for final stage manufacturers than for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

Industry also wanted the opportunity to relate the substantial actions that have been taken to achieve compliance with the dynamic test requirements of 208 as well as the complex situations and problems that developed in the course of these efforts.

RVIA also requested a delay in the effective date of the already existing dynamic test requirements to FMVSS 208 until September 1, 1992. RVIA will file a formal petition for NHTSA's action.

RVIA feels that the meeting was very successful. Dave Humphreys said that NHTSA seems genuinely concerned about the problems our industry faces in complying with new FMVSS rules and is now fully aware of industry's compliance activities regarding dynamic testing and seemed please with these efforts. Humphreys expects NHTSA to grant both short and long term relief that will benefit the industry.

See the reverse side for the list of attendees.

NHTSA MEETING JANUARY 14, 1992

ATTENDEES

NHTSA Staff

Patricia Brescin Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Dan Cohen Rulemaking Barry Felrice Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking Jeff Giuseppe Office of vehicle Safety Comp. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Jim Simons Plans & Policy Harry Thompson Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division Ken Weinstein Ass't. Chief Counsel for Litigation Steve Wood Ass,t. Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

FMVSS 208 Task Force and the Technical Subcommittee

Dusty Dickeson Seats-N-Stuff Grant Farrand Starcraft Automotive Tim Hooley Goshen Cushion, Inc. Dennis Rice Flexsteel Ind., Inc. Dave Dygert Dygert Seating Andy Verbeski Compliance Group Cliff Wieland Wieland Designs

Automotive Companies

Mick Cave General Motors Dick Humphrey GM, EA Staff, Safety Al Slechter Chrysler Corp.

Legal Consultants

Larry Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Jerry Loftus, Esq. Jerome C. Loftus, PC

RVIA Staff

David J. Humphreys RVIA, President and General Counsel Bruce A. Hopkins RVIA, Vice President of Standards Ed Conway RVIA, Assistant General Counsel

Attachment

Petition to Redefine, Enhance or Amend Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, Chapter Five, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Title 49 (Text omitted)

Attachment

Letter dated 10/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Wagner. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-5.15

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dale R. Thompson to Mary Versailles

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 28, 1991, requesting information regarding transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4. In your letter and in subsequent phone conversations with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that children in this age group "are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children." Previously, your agency had transportated these children, using 15 passenger vans, to your center for developmental training and custodial care. You are now planning to coordinate your services with the local public schools. You plan to use your vans to transport these children to and from the public school. While at the school, the children would receive approximately two hours of educational services from public school teachers. Prior to and after these services, the children would receive custodial care by your staff.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. You asked the following three questions about transporting these children.

1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/(NHTSA) standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both educational and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed (NHTSA) requirements? NOTE 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Because your students will be receiving approximately two hours of education each day, the program would be considered educational.

The Act gives NHTSA the authority to regulate the MANUFACTURE and SALE of new vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a

motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under Federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. Since you will be transporting children to school, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person, aware of the vehicles' intended use, to sell you a vehicle that is not a school bus.

On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, you may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether you may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

2. Would these vehicles be subject to (NHTSA)/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). NOTE 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency,will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home.

NHTSA regulations define a "school bus" as a bus used for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. We interpret the term "to and from" to be inclusive of situations where a bus is used to transport children only one way between home and the school. We also note that the Act's definition of school bus uses the term "to or from school."

3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with (NHTSA)/FMVSS standards. (NOTE: In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that you were interested in which standards are applicable to a "school bus.")

The following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 119 and 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124;

Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard No. 222; Standards No. 301 and 302.

Some of these standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, including Standards No. 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard No. 131 requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992 to have a stop signal arm. Standard No. 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for the body panel joints in school buses. Standard No. 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants on school buses. Under Standard No. 222, small school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) must be equipped with lap belts. For large school bus, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" - strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3292

Dear Mr. Milby:#This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, i which you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.#1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.#2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) 'the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated.' Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.#3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:#>>>(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,#(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,#(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,#(d) driver's side window defroster control,#(e) driver's fresh air vent control,#(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.<<<#Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, 'control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield.' Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are 'mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.#9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.#The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.#The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.#10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment.#11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.#12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.#13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.#14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.#15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.#16. With respect to air conditioning systems:#>>>(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.#(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system,#(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.<<<#17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3293

Dear Mr. Milby:#This responds to your letter of January 16, 1980, i which you asked a number of questions pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The answers to your questions are presented below and are numbered to correspond with the numbering of the questions in your letter.#1. Section 5.2.1 provides that where Table 1 of Standard 101-80 shows both a symbol and identifying words or abbreviations for a particular control, use of the symbol is mandatory and use of the words or abbreviations is optional.#2. When a manufacturer identifies a control with both the symbol shown in Table 1, Column 3, and the identifying words or abbreviations shown in Table 1, Column 2, only the symbol is subject to the illumination requirements of Section S5.3. That section states that with certain exceptions (i.e., foot operated controls or hand operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column or in the windshield header area) 'the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word 'yes' in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are actuated.' Since this section refers only to the identification required by Safety Standard 101-80, it does not apply to identification which is optional under the standard.#3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. In questions designated by these numbers, you asked whether the following controls are subject to the identification and illumination requirements of Standard 101-80:#>>>(a) a driver comfort fan which is not a part of the windshield or rear window defrosting and defogging system or the heating and air conditioning system,#(b) hot water flow valves for heaters which are opened in winter and then closed again in summer,#(c) heater fresh air control valves used to control the ratio of fresh to recirculated air entering the heater,#(d) driver's side window defroster control,#(e) driver's fresh air vent control,#(f) fan control for an optional driver's heater which directs air at the driver's feet.<<<#Section 5 of Standard 101-80 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80 regarding the location, identification and illumination of such control. Of the controls listed above, those lettered (a), (d) and (e) are not listed in either of these locations and thus are not subject to these requirements. Items (b), (c) and (f) are part of a heating or air conditioning system indicated in column 1 of Table 1 and is therefore subject to the location and identification requirements of Standard 101-80. However, the fan control, which directs air at the driver's feet, is not subject to the illumination requirements, since section 5.3.1 states, 'control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield.' Likewise, if the hot water flow valves and fresh air control valves are 'mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, or in the windshield header area,' then section 5.3.1 does not require them to be illuminated.#9. In your question 9, you asked whether the penultimate line in Table 2 concerning malfunctions in antilocks applies only to vehicles equipped with air brakes and whether the last line concerning brake system malfunctions applies only to vehicles equipped with hydraulic brakes.#The penultimate line of Table 2 applies to all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR which are equipped with an antilock system, regardless of whether they are air or hydraulic brake equipped vehicles. The agency included the reference to Standard 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, to indicate that section 5.3 of that standard permits a manufacturer to use either a yellow or red warning light depending on whether there is a separate indicator that only warns of antilock failure or there is an indicator which warns of antilock and other brake system failures.#The last line of Table 2 concerning the telltale for brake system malfunction applies to all vehicles equipped with this type of telltale regardless of the type of brake system. The agency included the reference to Standard 105 since section 5.3 of that standard specifies other requirements that brake system malfunction indicators used in hydraulic brake systems must meet.#10. This agency has never established specific size requirements for the identification symbols specified in Tables 1 and 2 of Standard 101-80. Sections 5.2.1 and 6 only require that such symbols be visible to a driver restrained by crash protection equipment.#11. None of the display requirements of Table II of Standard 101-80 apply to vehicles with a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. Displays included in such vehicles in accordance with other standards are subject only to the provisions of those standards.#12. Section 5.3.1 provides that the illumination requirements of Standard 101-80 do not apply to hand operated controls mounted on the steering column. Accordingly, they are not applicable to a hazard control mounted on the steering column.#13. If the clearance lamps are controlled with the headlamp switch, Table 1, footnote 2, of the standard provides that the only identification required is the headlamp switch symbol.#14. Standard 101-80, section 5.2.1, states that controls must be identified with the symbol indicated in Table 1 and that such identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The agency has previously indicated that manufacturers could use a symbol that is a minor deviation from the required symbol, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard (43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978). Thus, if the wiper symbol you want to use is only a minor deviation and substantially resembles the required wiper symbol, you may use it.#15. You enclosed in your letter a blueprint showing a bank of switches which control multispeed fans and asked whether the identification shown in the print would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80. Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) requires manufacturers to certify their compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, this agency does not approve products. However, from our understanding of the information you have provided, it appears that the identification you propose to use for fan controls would comply with Standard 101-80. This opinion is based on the fact that your blueprint shows use of the fan symbol in accord with section 5.2.1 and identification of each function of the fan switch in accord with section 5.2.2.#16. With respect to air conditioning systems:#>>>(1) Section 5.3.1 does not require illumination of the control identification if the system does not direct air directly upon the windshield.#(2) Table 1 and section 5.2.1 require the fan symbol to be used to identify the fan for an air conditioning system,#(3) If the air conditioning system control regulates temperature over a quantitative range, the extreme positions must be identified in accord with 5.2.2.<<<#17. With respect to vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR, the requirements of Standard 101-80 concerning telltales used to indicate high engine coolant temperature or low engine oil pressure are inapplicable. With respect to vehicles less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, these requirements are applicable. In a letter to Ford Motor Company (copy enclosed), this agency stated that use of the engine symbol which Ford proposed for identification of such telltales would comply with the requirements of Standard 101-80.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: 05-008512drn

ID: 10732

Mr. Lee Rabie
President
Enerco, Inc.
9615 West Marginal Way, So.
Seattle, WA 98108

Dear Mr. Rabie:

This responds to your letter of February 15, 1995, requesting information on any Federal regulations concerning recycling or remanufacturing vehicle air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards at the time of the product's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the product.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires that many vehicles provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. One type of automatic crash protection currently offered on new vehicles is air bags. A recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers are not required to certify that air bags, as items of equipment, meet any motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S9 of Standard No. 208 specifies

requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you could not sell a recycled or remanufactured air bag with these components replaced unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

It is unclear from your letter if the recycled or remanufactured air bags will be reinstalled in the original vehicle or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags for other vehicles with deployed air bags or as retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. Therefore, I will discuss these scenarios separately.

Re-installation or installation in a vehicle with a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a recycled or remanufactured air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, Federal law does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using recycled or remanufactured air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

Installation in a motor vehicle which did not originally have an air bag.

A Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Finally, as a manufacturer of replacement parts, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:4/3/95

ID: nht93-7.31

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: Jerome Cysewski -- Ideal Mfg., Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/24/94 from John Womack to Jerome Cysewski (A42; VSA 102)

TEXT:

I would like to have your interpretation of the following equipment regarding NHTSA statutes, regulation and standards:

The cement silo has tandem axles, weighs 13,600 pounds, the silo is mounted on its own trailer operated by electric brakes. This piece of equipment is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes.

The aggregate batch plant has a single axle, weighs 6400 pounds, the batch plant is mounted on its own trailer operated by electric brakes. This piece of equipment is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes.

Both pieces of equipment are mobile but are designed to be towed with vehicles for off-the-road set and positioning, this equipment is for a one man operation.

Please return my request to the above address. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht91-5.30

DATE: August 23, 1991

FROM: Jon Nisper -- K.B. Lighting, Inc.

TO: Jerry Medelin -- NHTSA

TITLE: Telephone conversation 8/20/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jon Nisper (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In reference to our telephone conversation please refer to the attached sheet showing a proposed headlamp / turnsignal assembly.

In each case, where should the 100mm separation be measured for turn signal headlamp position? The reflector being considered is an advanced variable focus highbeam / lowbeam utilizing a 9007 bulb. In both cases the inboard wall serves no functional pupose. And in fact, the inboard wall could be blackened with no loss of performance.

Thank you for your opinion. If you feel that this situation warrants it, I will follow this telefax up with a formal letter for official judgement.

Attachment

Diagram of the proposed headlamp/turnsignal assembly. (Graphics omitted)