ID: nht89-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAMES R. TOMAINO -- YOUNGSTOWN RUBBER PRODUCTS COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM JAMES R. TOMAINO TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3073

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tomaino:

This responds to your January 30, 1989 letter asking whether a "permanently embossed raised dot" on your air brake hose assembly satisfies the requirement in Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, for a manufacturer identification. As explained below, we believ e that use of the raised dot may be potentially confusing, since it isn't readily apparent whether the mark represents an intentional effort to identify the manufacturer of the assembly or is an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

By way of background, Standard No. 106 sets forth two methods of labeling air brake hose assemblies made with crimped or swaged end fittings. S7.2.3 states that these assemblies must be labeled by means of a band around the assembly or, at the option of the assembly manufacturer, by means of marking at least one end fitting as described in S7.2.3.1. You have asked us about the labeling requirements under the second option.

Since, for reasons of drafting convenience, the second option incorporates the portions of the first option relating to the nature of and filing of the designation, it is necessary to begin with a discussion of the first option. The first option (S7.2.3( b)) provides that the bank must be marked with informtion including:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D .C. 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol. (Emphasis added.)

The second option (S7.2.3.1) requires assemblies to be "etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b)." (Emphasis adde d.) The concluding language,

"in accordance with S7.2.3(b)," modifies both of the preceding clauses, i.e., both "identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly" and "is filed." Thus, the identification provided in compliance with the second option "may consist of block capital let ters, numerals or a symbol."

Since the raised dot is clearly neither a block capital letter or a numeral, the issue is whether it can be considered a symbol. The dictionary defines "symbol," for the purposes relevant to your inquiry, as follows: "something that stands for or sugges ts something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) The agency concludes that the dot is not a symbol because it is not readily apparent that the raised dot stands for or suggests anything. Instead, the dot appears to be only an accidental by-product of the manufacturing process.

Manufacturer identification is crucial for the enforcement of Standard No. 106's requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies. We urge you to use a more distinctive mark to identify your company as the manufacturer of the assembly. To assist you , and in response to your March 17 telephone request, we are enclosing examples of designations which manufacturers of brake hoses, fittings and assemblies have registered with NHTSA. These examples should be helpful in providing ideas for another desig nation.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

ID: nht89-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON E. PANETTA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/04/89 FROM LEON E., PANETTA TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panetta:

This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed hi s objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you.

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the fiel d of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification of a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were u sed to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and naus ea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and lig ht trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements.

The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are:

1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also

ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror.

2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive.

3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortio n.

4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object.

Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the area he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and oth er potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 18, 1989

FROM: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., PRODUCT COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, OUR LETTER JULY 11,1988

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-16-90 TO WILLIAM SHAPIRO FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 210). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO.

TEXT:

Enclosed is a copy of our July 11, 1988 letter re: FMVSS 210.

We would appreciate your reply as soon as possible because our engineering department is awaiting an answer.

Thank you for your attention.

Enc.

ID: nht89-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS

TO: JOHN STONER -- CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HENRY J. NOWAK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A33; PART 571; LETTER DATED 04/14/89 FROM EUGENIA M. PIERAKOS AND JAMES L. PIERAKOS -- SNOWFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND CONSULTING OF BUFFALO INC; SPECIFICATIONS DATED 03/01/89 EST, FROM JAEGER INDUSTRIES INC, JAEGER PL SERIES, TYPICAL BODY SPECIFICATIONS; SPECIFICATIONS DATED 01/06/89 FROM JAEGER CANADA EQUIPMENT LIMITED; PURCHASE SPECIFICATIONS DRAFT PL SERIES POWER LOADING CURBSIDE AND DRAFT PIC KUP OF SOURCE SEPARATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS; CHASSIS; CAB; BODY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stoner:

Enclosed is a self-explanatory letter from a constituent concerning a Canadian firm's difficulties in obtaining the federal regulations which certain imported equipment must meet.

I would appreciate it if you reviewed the enclosed material and provided the needed technical information. Your timely consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

With best wishes and kindest regards,

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: GAY M. ARTHUR

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GAY M. ARTHUR; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

I am requesting clarification on the restrictions (if any) for the exterior roof on passenger cars. More specifically, I'd like to know if detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars.

In addition, if your office knows of specific restrictions by state, i.e., size or color, lighted or not, etc., I would also appreciate that information as well. If there is any cost for the photocopies, please let me know and I would be happy to send i t to you. Enclosed you will find a self-addressed stamped envelope for your use.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and for your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/89

FROM: JIM BOWEN -- VICE-PRESIDENT OF QUALITY, SERVICE & PARTS, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: N

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1989 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO JIM BOWEN, GULF STREAM COACH, INC.;[A34; STD. 101]

TEXT: I have a question on the N.H.T.S.A. ruling on the instal- lation of a T.V. in the view of the driver of a vehicle.

I would like to know if the T.V. has to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on.

Your response in writing would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: JAMES R. TOMAINO -- MARKETING MANAGER YOUNGSTOWN RUBBER PRODUCTS CO

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/27/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JAMES R. TOMAINO, REDBOOK A33(2); STANDARD 106

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am submitting to you for review, one air brake hose assembly to determine if our symbol is sufficient for approval. The permanently embossed raised dot has been used on other assemblies by our company for over ten years. We seek now clearance to f abricate air brake assemblies for wholesale and retail sales.

Your most prompt attention would be appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KAREN E. FINKEL -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM KAREN E. FINKEL TO JOHN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA, OCC 3163

TEXT: Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school t ransportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-o ut windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carryin g students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR S571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contrac tors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying s chool bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by select ing the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against su ch a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 21 7.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirabi lity of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally requ ire push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/89

FROM: P.H. Moes -- U.S. Trade Corp.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION CAFE-REGULATIONS: OBLIGATIONS & RESPONSIBILITIES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/22/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO P.H. MOES; REDBOOK A33; CSA 502 (9); CSA 505

TEXT: Dear Sir:

US Trade Corporation has been converting vehicles for their owners for many years.

We assisted with the importation and filled out the short form or HS-189 and HS-7 forms as per copies enclosed. The name of the importer is always the owner of the vehicle.

However, when an EPA-emission conversion has to be done as well, the EPA entry form 3520-1 will show our Company as the importer of record.

Some US Customs officers are now confused and sometimes require the customs broker to fill in the name of US Trade Corporation instead of the owner on the DOT forms.

We understand that the only vehicles that we have to list on the yearly CAFE form are the ones that we import with US Trade Corporation listed as owner.

In order to clarify this confusion, we would like to receive your confirmation on both issues on writing so that we can inform our brokers accordingly and know what to do with the CAFE form.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/89

FROM: JOHN WOODDELL

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF STANDARD 208 AS APPLIED TO 1978 DODGE RAMCHARGER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/21/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN WOODDELL; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108 [A][1][A]; STANDARD 108 [A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 [B][1]; STANDARD 208

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I was referred to your office for a written interpretation of Standard 208 by Mr. Guy Hunter, in the Crashworthiness Division. Mr. Hunter was kind enough to go over the Standard with me by telephone and reported his opinion concerning the application of the Standard to the vehicle with which I am concerned.

The question for consideration is:

What type of seat belt assembly should have been installed in a 1978 model Dodge Ramcharger?

The subject vehicle was manufactured in November 1977. It is a four wheel drive vehicle, with a gross vehicle weight of approximately 6,000 lbs. It is a two door vehicle with a hard top and enclosed sides. In general appearance, it would be comparable to the Chevrolet Blazer or the Ford Bronco. We understand that it fits within the designation "multi purpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of Standard 208.

Based on my conversation with Mr. Hunter, I arrived at the following interpretation of the standard:

Section S4.2.2 is controlling, and that said section requires that the vehicle comply with one of the three options set out in Section S4.1.2. The "first option" and "second option" refer to passive type restraint systems; those would be sufficient f or this vehicle, but were, as a matter of custom and practice not used in the time periods involved here. The "third option" requires either (1) a lap and shoulder belt assembly, or

(2) a lap belt system designed to withstand a special test requirement relative to crash protection and injury force criteria, set out in Section S5.1. Of these two alternatives, the lap belt and special test criteria option was seldom or never used i n the time period involved here. Accordingly, as a practical matter, the subject vehicle would be expected to have a lap and shoulder belt assembly.

If the interpretation arrived at from my discussion with Mr. Hunter is accurate, I would appreciate receiving a letter from your office confirming that interpretation.

If further information is needed or I can be of assistance in expediting this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,