ID: nht91-1.31

DATE: January 31, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott K. Hiler -- Manager, R & D Lab, The C.E. White Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1990 concerning a padded restraining device for use in school buses. The device is U-shaped, and the ends of the device attach to the two sides of a school bus seatback. The device folds down behind the seatback for the purpose of restraining persons seated in the next rearward seat. You asked whether the back side of the restraining device attachment cover falls outside of the "leg protection zone" as described in S5.3.2.1 of 49 CFR 571.222. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222 reads as follows:

The leg protection zones of each vehicle are those parts of the school bus passenger seat backs and restraining barriers bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the school bus passenger seat immediately behind the seat back or restraining barrier.

You suggested that, if the restraining bar is installed as original equipment, the attachment cover is outside the leg protection zone because it "is an extension to the side of the seat and not part of the seat back surface area itself."

As discussed below, we do not agree with your suggested interpretation. I note that the pictures enclosed with your letter do not provide sufficient information to determine if the attachment cover is within the leg protection zone. However, I can explain how this determination should be made.

It is our opinion that once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback. As is the case with any other part of the seatback, if the attachment cover is bounded by horizontal planes 12 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point of the next rearward seat, it would be within the leg protection zone. If you determine that the attachment cover is

within the leg protection zone, it must meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222 or be moved so that it is no longer within this zone.

You also stated that, "upon retrofitting an existing seat," the attachment cover would not be within the leg protection zone because, "the seat back leg protection zone is already defined for that seat when originally installed without the device." We again disagree. The leg protection zone is defined by Standard No. 222, not by the original design of the seat. Therefore, the attachment cover cannot be installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business if the installation would violate the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This provision would be violated if the attachment cover does not meet the requirements of S5.3.2.2 and is installed so that any part is within the leg protection zone.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.32

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Keller & Heckman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 from Thomas R. Mounteer to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5031)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on behalf of your client, Heritage Motors, that asked whether Heritage, given the nature of its manufacturing process, must assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). I apologize for the delay in this response. As discussed below, since Heritage considers the vehicles it manufactures to be: (1) "new" vehicles and (2) manufactured in one stage, it must assign its own VINs to the cars. I note that this letter addresses the vehicles Heritage assembles and not the "kits" which Heritage also sells.

According to your letter, Heritage Motors makes replica Mercedes 500K passenger cars, using 1970-1981 Chevrolet Camaros as donor cars. An information brochure accompanying your letter describes the parts that are removed from the Camaros and then reused in the Mercedes replica. Since Heritage uses a new body, engine, transmission, and many other new or remanufactured parts, you have considered the completed vehicle to be a "new" motor vehicle. Moreover, Heritage manufactures the vehicles in one stage.

Under section S4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, each vehicle manufactured in one stage must have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Heritage must therefore assign its own VIN numbers to the cars it manufactures.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.33

DATE: February 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Malinowski -- Small Business Center

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-14-90 from Jeffrey S. Malinowski to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5461)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Leo McCallum, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to his invention, a tie rod, safety bracket. You stated that the product would typically be installed by a vehicle owner to reduce tie rod end wear. As explained below, while no Federal safety standard directly applies to your client's product, he may nevertheless have certain responsibilities under this agency's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has no safety standard directly about tie rods or safety brackets used with tie rods.

As for installation of your client's device on vehicles in the aftermarket, such installations may be limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If installation of your client's product resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with a safety standard, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the product would have rendered inoperative a device or element of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a standard. To avoid a "rendering operative" violation, your client should examine his product to determine if installing his product would result in the vehicle no longer complying with a standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the render inoperative provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your client's product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "tire rod safety bracket" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your client's product, your client as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the part so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the part with an identical or reasonably equivalent part which does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.34

DATE: February 5, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Susan J. Otjen -- Spill Response Project, Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-5-90 from Susan J. Otjen to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5519)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion whether Oregon's specifica- tions for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles are consistent with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Based on the information provided in your letter and telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of this office, there is no inconsistency betweens Oregon's specifications and the Federal safety standards.

The Emergency Response Vehicles in question have a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. Oregon's specifications call for the vehicle to include a manual safety belt at each seating position. One of the parties bidding on the contract for these vehicles suggested that these specifications were inadequate to comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards, because, according to the bidder, the Federal standards require a crash test to measure the occupant protection afforded in these vehicles. The bidder's assertion is inaccurate.

The occupant protection requirements applicable to these Emergency Response Vehicles are set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). That section requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 pounds provide occupant protection at every designated seating position, but gives manufacturers two alternative means of providing the necessary protection.

The first option for manufactures of these vehicles, as set forth in S4.3.2.1, is to provide automatic crash protection (e.g., air bags or automatic safety belts) for occupants. If this option were chosen, the vehicle would be subject to crash testing by NHTSA during its compliance evaluations. To date, no manufacturer of heavy vehicles has ever chosen this option. Instead, they have chosen the second option.

The second option, as set forth in S4.3.2.2, is to provide manual safety belts at every designated seating position. No vehicle crash testing is conducted under this option. Instead, compliance evaluations are based on a series of static tests of the safety belt assembly and the anchorage for that assembly. Accordingly, there is nothing in the Oregon specifications for these Emergency Response Vehicles that conflicts with the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.35

DATE: February 7, 1991

FROM: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Billy S. Peterson (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

We have a client who wishes to mount two-part tail/stop lamps on the rear of their vehicle so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid. The specific question we have is:

Must the minimum photometric requirements be met by the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted to the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements?

The confusion arises from a letter from your office to this office dated 1/28/88 which stated that the trunk lid is considered a rigid body panel for purposes of this standard because it is meant to be closed during normal operation and, therefore, the mounting of reflectors and back-up lamps on it is allowed.

Another letter, addressed to Volkswagen of America, dated 7/30/80, states essentially the same thing except it contains the opinion that placement of the tail/stop lamps on the trunk lid may be viewed as a defect in performance, subject to recall. Our interpretation of this letter was that VW had planned to mount lamps only on the trunk lid and not the body quarter panel and this could pose a problem.

Since our client's intention to mount duplicate tail/stop lamps on both the body quarter panel and the trunk lid was not specifically addressed in the earlier letters noted above, this letter serves as a request for clarification of the requisite output requirements associated with that mounting arrangement.

A drawing of the proposed lamp combination is attached to this letter.

Attachment

Drawing of proposed lamp combination (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.36

DATE: February 8, 1991

FROM: J.C. Brown -- President, MidAmerica Design Service

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to J.C. Brown (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

MidAmerica Design Service is being asked to develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers.

This light will be wired to the existing system as an "add on".

After reviewing FMV-108, I can find no reference to any high mounted stop light for trailers in any form. Therefore, it appears, that as long as I add to the existing system and not eliminate any standard lighting, we will be in compliance with the standards.

Please forward to me your opinion and any other steps I must take to ensure compliance.

ID: nht91-1.37

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S.V. Kaaria

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Marvin A. Leach to S.V. Kaaria (OCC 5648); Also attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from S.V. Kaaria to NHTSA

TEXT:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, 1991, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for 1% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. 108 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

ID: nht91-1.38

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS Number 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Delbert N. Pier (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Hyundai requests assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Number 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment).

In regards to the interchangeability of headlamp bulbs, the procedure (571.108) requires that the terminals must be perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees.

Hyundai would like an interpretation on whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees, as shown in the attachment, view X. This will not change the terminal logistics by the rotation of the bulb fixture. This rotation will not change the constants, (attachment, view Y, from 49 CFR) or the relationship of the terminals to the constants.

Hyundai is requesting an interpretation for a future production vehicle and needs a prompt answer. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should further clarification be required, feel free to contact me at the telephone number listed above.

Attachment 1

S571.108 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89) Interchangeability Drawing Headlamp Bulb Assembly (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.39

DATE: February 12, 1991

FROM: Richard F. Land -- Director of Licensure, State of Tennessee, Bureau Of Manpower and Facilities, Division of Emergency Medical Services

TO: Deidre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard F. Land (A37; Std. 124; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The NHTSA office of Enforcement has referred me to your office in a matter regarding the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to ambulance design and maintenance.

Upon recent inspection of a fleet of ambulances operated by a private provider near Chattanooga, Tennessee, our inspectors discovered that wooden blocks had been mounted beneath the accelerator pedals as a makeshift speed governor.

While such action seems to violate common sense, in that there are times when acceleration is critical, such as merging with interstate highway traffic, we find Tennessee list no Statutory offense that our office or highway patrol may cite.

We would appreciate any guidance or assistance with enforcement that may be appropriate to this matter.

Should you wish to discuss the situation or acquire further information, please call me at the Division of Emergency Medical Services, 615-367-6278.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

ID: nht91-1.4

DATE: 01/01/91

FROM: UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

COPYEE: THE MINISTER'S OFFICE; THE UNDER SECRETARY; INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS; STANDARDS & METROLOGY DEPT.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (PART 574; STD. 109; STD. 119; A40; PART 571)

TEXT: We have studied your above mentioned standards with interst and we would appreciate if you please reply to following questions:

1) Do all tyres manufactured and sold in the US must bear the (DOT) mark?

2) What are the basises for granting the right to use the (DOT) mark by the manufacturer on their tyres?

3) Is the (DOT) mark required for local consumed and exported tyres also?

4) Is there a validity time for the use of the (DOT) mark?

5) What is the relation ship between your administnation and the Department Of Transportation concerning the implementation of the use of the (DOT) mark?

6) What are the legal responsibility of the manufacturer by using the mark.

7) What are the responsibility of the manufacturer in case of violation of mark's roles.

We would appreciate if you please kindly furnish us with all information and document concerning the above mentioned subject.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.