ID: 86-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks Alaska concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.

Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts apply to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below. the answer is no.

We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company. Wilbur & Son. on February 13 to obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1984 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles. but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e.. school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although we have determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted. we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.

We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985). Which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if he can be of further assistance.

Sincerely.

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear David:

I've been contacted by Ms. Kimberly Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska regarding federal regulations for seat belts on school buses.

Ms. Hallenbeck works for Wilbur & Son, the company which runs a bus shuttle service at Fort Wainwright for military personnel and civilians. The buses used are school buses which have been repainted for use by Wilbur & Son.

Ms. Hallenbeck would like to know what type of federal regulations on seat belts would apply to these buses. I'd appreciate your supplying this information.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes, Cordially,

TED STEVENS

ID: 86-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Mrs. Ralfsbeek asks whether we have proposed to make safety belts mandatory on school buses. As explained below, our regulations already require safety belts on smaller school buses. i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR's) of 10,000 pounds or less. While we have not proposed to require safety belts on large school buses over 10,000 pounds, we issued a proposal in October 1985 to ensure that if safety belts are voluntarily installed on a large new school bus, they meet appropriate performance requirements.

I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements for safety belts on school buses. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. We do not require safety belts in large school buses because those buses have been required since 1977 to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs. additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.

Although this agency has determined that a safety standard requiring safety belts in those buses is not warranted at this time. State and local governments are nevertheless free to order safety belts on their new school buses if they wish to do so. Most school bus manufacturers are capable of installing them in those vehicles.

As mentioned earlier, we have proposed to set performance standards for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. If the proposal is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that the voluntarily-installed safety belts meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed for your information.

In addition, we are providing you with a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses" (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 21, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

I've been contacted by Mrs. Teresa Kalfsbeek of Kasilof, Alaska regarding requirements for seat belts on school buses. Mrs. Kalfsbeek would like to know if there are any proposals to make seat belts mandatory on these buses.

I'd appreciate your responding to Mrs. Kalfsbeek's inquiry and filling me in on existing federal regulations on seat belt use on school buses.

Thanks for your help.

With best wishes,

Cordially, TED STEVENS

ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86 EST

FROM: DIANE K. STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR NHTSA

TO: RICHARD P. HAHN -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/25/86 EST, TO GEORGE W KEELEY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3), VSA 102 (3); LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hahn:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole on behalf of the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association concerning a recent interpretation letter issued by this agency to Mr. P.J. Pennells. The letter, which you saw reported by the Bureau of National Affairs, concerned the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to construction equipment. I am glad to have this opportunity to clarify the agency's position.

The agency's letter to Mr. Pennells offered some brief general guidelines about the applicability of our safety standards and offered to provide a specific interpretation once we received more detailed information about the design characteristics and use of the particular vehicle Mr. Pennells was concerned about. The letter should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment.

It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which uses the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, we believe that such vehicles are motor vehicles in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." We believe this position is fully consistent with the court's decision in Koehring Co. v. Adams (452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), aff'd, 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979)).

I am providing a copy of your letter and my response to Mr. Pennells and the Bureau of National Affairs. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kevin Rossman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kevin Rossman Vice president - Sales & Marketing The Highland Group 9300 Midwest Avenue Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125

Dear Mr. Rossman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1986, to the former chief counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, in which you ask whether a deck-mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage is a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The answer is no. Compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements of the standard for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 13, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Highland Group is a US Manufacturer of Passenger Car Rear Deck Luggage Racks.

It has been rumored in the field that a deck - mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage may cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number #108.

To alleviate potential problem in the field, any input you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

THE HIGHLAND GROUP, INC.

Kevin Rossman Vice President - Sales & Marketing

KR/nc

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

ID: 86-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Senator Bentsen:

Thank You for Your recent letters to Administrator Steed on behalf of your constituent Mr. Joe M. Rutland. I apologize for the delay in our response. Mr. Rutland asked why this agency requires safety warnings be lithographically marked on brake fluid containers. He believes that this requirement causes undue hardship on small businesses that package brake fluid. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Rutland's concerns and to clarify our requirements for brake fluid container labeling.

Some background information on NHTSA's authority to regulate in this area might be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") authorizes us to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake fluid. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR 571.116), has been in effect as a motor vehicle safety standard since the passage of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1971, Standard No. 116 was amended to establish requirements for the labeling of brake fluid containers. The rule required certain safety information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container.

Brake fluid containers must be labeled with specific safety warnings, in addition to other general information. The warnings serve as a safeguard against failures in hydraulic braking systems that might result from the use of improper or contaminated fluids. The warnings also help to prevent improper storage of the brake fluid which could contaminate the fluid or cause it to absorb moisture. Avoiding the absorption of moisture is extremely important since moisture in a brake system degrades braking performance and safety by lowering the brake fluid's boiling point, and increases possibilities of vapor lock and brake system component corrosion.

Thus, packagers of brake fluid have been required since 1971 to furnish the safety information clearly and indelibly on each brake fluid container. In response to a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 116 in 1984, NHTSA ruled that the use of labels affixed to brake fluid containers would not comply with the labeling requirements of the standard. However, Standard No. 116 does not mandate that lithography be used to mark the containers, as Mr. Rutland seems to believe. Any technology, whether lithography or otherwise, may be used if the resultant marking on a brake fluid container is clear and indelible and directly on the container itself.

The agency has recently been made aware of the concern that the 1984 interpretation of Standard No. 116's labeling requirements may be causing undue hardship for packagers of brake fluid. In response to those concerns, we have been examining Standard No. 116 to assess its current labeling requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dianne Steed, Acting Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I recently received the enclosed constituent inquiry, and I would very much appreciate your providing me with any pertinent information you might have regarding the matter.

Your kind assistance is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Bentsen

Enclosure

PLEASE REPLY TO:

1100 Commerce, Room 7C14, Dallas, Texas 75242

October 4, 1985

TO: Automotive Chemicals Division Scientific Committee

FROM: Stephen S. Kellner Vice President Legal Affairs

RE: Notice of Meetings

Previously, we notified your office that two meetings are scheduled concerning ethylene glycol antifreeze and brake fluid. The purpose of this correspondence is to reiterate and confirm the substance of our phone conversation.

Both meetings will be held on October 11, 1985 at CSMA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The morning meeting will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn at noon. The subject matter of this meeting involves Union Carbide's intentions to revise its ethylene glycol antifreeze labels to reflect what it terms as new data which shows ethylene glycol to be an animal teratogen when ingested orally. This meeting is being organized by CSMA at the request of Union Carbide and is meant to serve as a forum for the exchange of information on the matter.

The afternoon meeting is scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. and is expected to end at approximately 3:30 p.m. CSMA is calling this meeting to bring to the membership's attention recent advisory opinions issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (an arm of the U.S. Department of Transportation) advising industry that labels permanently glued to brake fluid containers do not meet the "clearly and indelibly marked" requirement of 49 CFR S571.116, SS5.2.2.2.

It is NHTSA'S opinion that relevent information must be directly marked on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. Obviously, such an interpretation will cause great economic hardship to those companies which package brake fluid under various private labels and, therefore, depend on the use of paper or other labels. At this meeting, we need to address the issue of brake fluid labeling and NHTSA's advisory opinions. In addition, CSMA has tentatively arranged a meeting on October 18, 1985 with NHTSA's legal and technical staff to share our concerns with their interpretation of the brake fluid labeling regulation.

October 29, 1985

Senator Lloyd Bentson 703 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Lloyd,

Since we consider you a friend of the small business man, I'm enclosing a legal opinion from an attorney of the CSMA in reference t labeling of brake fluid containers. Their interpretation of this law will require that brake fluid containers to be lithographed will have to be purchased in large quantities which cause undue hardship as well as cost on the small business man.

I would like to suggest that your office contact the NHTSA and find out why brake fluid is being singled out for this interpretation, while apparently no such interpretation exists for insecticide, which I would think would be more dangerous than brake fluid.

Your useful help will be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Rutland

JMR:lc enc

ID: 86-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Lembke -- CL's Crafts and Florals

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Carol Lembke CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar Street Charles City, Iowa 50616

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1985, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked about the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of "animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the backs of cars. The eyes are in red or amber".

We assume that you wish to sell these as accessories available in the aftermarket and not as original vehicle equipment. As these are not items of replacement lighting equipment but intended to supplement a vehicle's existing turn signal or stop lamp system, they are not covered by Standard No. 108 and their legality would be determined under the laws of a State where they would be in use. For example, you have told us that Iowa would allow these supplemental lamps. We recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators once more, inform them that there is no Federal prohibition on this use, and ask their advice.

You have mentioned the center high-mounted stop lamp and whether your lights might be acceptable on cars of a certain age, and not on others. Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a third stop lamp mounted on the rear centerline not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches on convertibles). In the initial year of use, the most frequently used area for mounting the lamp is the interior parcel shelf, where we presume that your supplemental lamp would be installed. Because your light would not meet the requirements for the center mounted lamp, it would be a violation of Federal law for a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business to remove the center mounted stop lamp and install your device. However, if the center mounted lamp is located in a place other than the parcel shelf, there would be no legal prohibition under Standard No. 108 forbidding the installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CL's Crafts & Florals 905 Cedar St. Charles City, Iowa 50616 October 30, 1985 Taylor Vinson NHTSA - Legal Counsel 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St., SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir: I am writing to ask assistance on the legality of a craft item I am making. I have a craft shop and attend craft shows. Recently I started making animals with lights in their eyes that work with the turn signals and brake lights to go in the back of the cars. The eyes are in red or amber. I checked with the Iowa State DOT and was told they would be ok since they were an ornament as long as they did not block view and had red or amber eyes. I've spoken to a Small Business Representative whom suggested I go mail order or sell to stores. I've also had interest from Florida and a Rod and Custom Club since they represent the fads of the 50's and 60's. I then became concerned about going into other states, their state laws and Federal laws that might not permit this item to be sold. I don't want to invest money and lots of time into this craft item only to find out that it is illegal and could come back on me. I've been told that a possible conflict could be a code number FMVSS 108. Something having to do with the new laws on the standard center mount lighting. I'm also wondering if this lighted animal might be ok for certain age cars and not others? I've made calls to DC to: American Assoc. of Motor Vehicles, NHTSA, and Federal Motor Vehicle Dept. of Trans. - only to get passed from one department to another till finally I was told to contact your office for assistance. I'm beginning to feel that this is one of those times that I should have taken my chances instead of trying to check things out to be legal. The interest is mounting in our Auto Animals for Christmas gifts and I have another show Nov. 9th. I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that I will know if I can go ahead or not. Thank you. Sincerely, Carol Lembke 905 Cedar St. Charles City, IA 50616 Phone: 515-228-6913

ID: 86-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D. Moens -- Sales Engineer, Van Hool N.V. (Belgium)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. D. Moens Sales Engineer Van Hool N.V. Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58 B-2578 Lier Koningshooikt, Belgium

This responds to your October 10, 1985 letter to this agency requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You asked whether FMVSS No. 217 allows the use of sliding roof emergency exits. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism and the direction in which the mechanism operates relative to the surface of the closed exit. As explained below, if the release mechanism falls in the area of high force application, i.e., the area of the bus in which high operating forces may be used, then the answer to your question is no.

According to your letter, you provide two roof hatches on your buses, in the front and rear of the vehicles, although the front roof hatch is not needed to meet the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. The roof hatches would slide open rather than push out, and would be opened by a handle which is located in the region of high force application as shown in Figure 3B of the standard.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits and specifies requirements that all emergency exits must meet. Paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that a roof exit may be installed on buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit. The roof exit must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. Under S5.3.2, the direction of required force application in the high force access region is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface. Since your exit is designed so that the force is applied parallel to the exit surface, it does not comply with S5.3.2.

Of course, your roof emergency exit must meet all applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 217. You should note that under S5.3.1, a roof exit must provide for a release mechanism, located within the regions depicted in Figure 3B of the standard. The release mechanism must be operated by one or two force applications which comply with S5.3.2. Further, S5.5 sets certain identification requirements for roof emergency exits.

You stated that the roof exit installed in the forward half of the bus does not need to be counted to satisfy the unobstructed openings requirement of Standard No. 217. Exits that are not labeled or intended as emergency exits need not meet the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

You asked what consequences would follow if we determine that your sliding roof exit does not comply with FMVSS No. 217. That standard was issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act requires manufacturers to comply with all applicable safety standards. It also requires them to notify purchasers of their motor vehicles of safety-related defects and failures to comply with the safety standards, and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Violations of the Act's requirements are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum $800,000 for a related series of violations. Under the regulations set forth in Part 556 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption from the Act's notice and remedy requirements if they believe that the defect or noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. However, if the agency denies such a petition, all duties relating to notice and remedy of the defect or noncompliance contained in the Vehicle Safety Act are continued in force against the manufacturer.

Mr. Sebastian Messina of the New Jersey Department of Transportation has contacted us concerning the sliding emergency exits on your buses. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NHTSA Chief Council Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller 400 7th Street SW Washington DC 20590 USA

VIA AIR MAIL

AFDELING: Eng. Dept. BIN TELEF: 419 ONZE REF: DM/cb/13.979 B-2578 LIER - KONINGSHOOIKT: 10.10.85

Dear Sirs,

Re.: Emergency roof hatch Ref: Standard no. 217, Bus window retention and release

Van Hool are Belgian bus and trailer manufacturers, with a production capacity of 1500 buses and 4000 trailers and semi-trailers a year. For your information you will find enclosed a general presentation leaflet.

After the information we got by phone from the New Jersey D.O.T. with the statement that they will not accept our sliding type emergency roof hatches anymore, we would like to make clear to you the functioning of our type of roof hatches, Please find enclosed some copies explaining the system. We do not intend to tell what is right or wrong or express our displeasure, nor do we have doubts about the objectivity of the New Jersey D.O.T. However an investigation from your side of our system and a judgement would be appreciated as we have to deal with other States which rely on the Federal decisions and Standards.

Two completely finished buses and one almost finished bus are ready to be shipped to the USA; they are still equipped with the sliding type emergency roof hatches. So if your judgement should be negative we would like to get a derogation for those 3 buses because in the meantime they will already be shipped to the U.S.A.

Please also note that, in case of a negative judgement, we have yet studied other types of American made roof hatches, for future deliveries.

We thank you for an early reply and remain,

Yours sincerely,

N.V. VAN HOOL

D. MOENS Sales Engineer Enclosures - explanation of functioning

Explanation of functioning

1. The 2 roof hatches are situated in the centre of the roof, one in the first half of the bus and one in the rear half, in the access region for high forces (magnitude of not more than 60 pounds).

In fact we only need the rear one to replace the rear exit.

But as we use them also for ventilation we are mounting 2.

2. The roof hatch can be opened manual by s single occupant and one motion, sliding backwards, parallel to the exit surface.

3. Magnitude: 56 pounds.

4. The free unobstructed opening is: 31 inches x 21 inches.

ID: 86-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/86

FROM: J.L HENDRICKS -- PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER, CUMMINGS ENGINE COMPANY INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/04/86, TO J.L. HENDRICKS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29; PART 573.7

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Cummins Engine Company, Inc. manufactures both on and off-highway heavy-duty diesel engines and related engine products. Cummins is a non-integrated engine manufacturer and, therefore, has no control over which chassis or engine combination the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will select as the final vehicle configuration.

The problem I wish to address, and solicit assistance from your office, deals with the difficulty of non-integrated engine manufacturers identifying ultimater purchasers as required by 49 CFR, Part 573, 573.7 "Purchaser and Owner List," during safety defect campaign.

Cummins Engine Company recently experienced a voluntary safety recall campaign (NTSA 85E-016) regarding a potential defective assembly of a fuel pump throttle lever. During Cummins' attempts to survey state registration records we have discovered that the State of Connecticut requires a formal declaration of vehicle identification numbers (VIN'S) and justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of justification regarding the reason for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. Additionally, this process requires the services of a third party agent who, by some contractual agreement, obtains the registration information, and after approval of the specific authority, develops appropriate information and analysis computer tapes for re-sale.

Cummins primary concern does not deal with the reasons each state may have in designing security measures for vehicle registration; on the contrary, we respect the right of individual privacy and the measures each state may use to safeguard their private citizens. However, we are concerned about the additional length of time required to notify each owner under Connecticut's present system.

Unlike light-duty passenger car owners, which tend to be stationary, heavy-duty truck owner/operators can be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. Often times the owner/operator has either moved their operations to take advantage of various freight markets, or has transferred ownership for many diverse reasons. In many instances we cannot provide the respective state bureau of motor vehicles with a current owner name at the time we are soliciting information due to lead time constraints and the mobility of owner/operators.

In an attempt to improve our ability to notify consumers during safety recall campaigns, Cummins is requesting that your office forward a letter to the state of Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins, a program that could mutually protect their citizenry and enable us to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis.

Cummins would also appreciate a review of all states' policies regarding the accessibility of vehicle registrations. Preferably Cummins would encourage each state Department of Motor Vehicles to allow direct negotiations between them and manufacturers, without the delay of third party agents. However, that is a level of detail for negotiation with each of the respective states.

The following Connecticut contact person and address is being provided for your disposition:

Letter to: Honorable Benjamin A. Muzio

Commissioner Department of Motor Vehicles 60 State Street Wethersfield, CT 06109

Copy to: Honorable Peter Russo Assistant Commissioner

Because of the potential safety exposure to our trucking patrons during safety recall campaigns, we request your response to this issue as soon as possible.

Sincerely,