ID: nht87-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1987, with respect to a new headlamp design of very low profile. The height of the headlamp is less than that required by dimension A of Figure 4, of Standard No. 108, and you have asked NHTSA: "to make th e height of the headlamp lower than dimension A...on condition that the additional adaptor will be as original equipment".

You are under the impression that our interpretation to you dated March 26, 1987, relating to acceptability of a headlamp lens with a 60 degree angle was an affirmative one conditioned upon the provision of an adaptor as original equipment. In fact, we o nly advised you that such an adaptor should be provided, not that it was required. With respect to your present letter, dimension A is established by Standard No. 108 and cannot be modified except through rulemaking, whether or not an adaptor is provided .

If you wish to submit a petition for rulemaking to amend dimension A of Figure 4 we shall be pleased to consider it. The agency also intends to publish in the near future a notice asking comments on various aspects of vehicle headlamp aim and aiming meth ods which you may wish to consider in relation to your new headlamp design. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 18, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We asked you about use of 60 degrees slanted headlamp by our letter of August 4, 1986. And you replied to us by your letter of March 26, 1987 that our new developed device was permitted to use only when an adaptor is provided as original vehicle equipmen t.

We are now developing a new headlamp which has higher characteristic of aerodynamics than the above headlamp by shortening the height of headlamp. However, we have found it hard to equip the timing pads on the lens because the height of headlamp becomes lower than dimension A required by FMVSS No.108, Figure 4. (See attached drawing.)

So we are asking you following request.

- Request -

We would like to ask you to accept to make the height of headlamp lower than dimension A specified by FMVSS N0.108, Figure 4 on condition that the additional adaptor will be provided as original vehicle equipment.

As mechanical aiming of this lamp can be made only by using additional adaptor, we assure that users will not be given disadvantage even if the height of headlamp becomes lower.

We are looking forward to your reply. Yours Faithfully, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Attachment

ID: nht87-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: EDWARD JETTNER -- NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO CHEVROLET DIVISION; 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE, 1G1BL51H0HX163146, 900 0 MILES

TEXT: Gentlemen:

A General Motor's Customer Service representative referred me to your Administration when I requested that they authorize the moving of the front seat in the 1987 Chevrolet Caprice that I drive. The attached letter to Chevrolet explains the problem. Th e Customer Service Representative tells me he cannot, by law, move the seat.

Please tell me how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to move the seat in the 1987 Caprice.

Very truly yours,

Attachment

ID: nht87-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rode & Qualey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: William J. Maloney, Esq. Rode & Qualey 295 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Maloney:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @571.211). Section @3 of this standard states, "Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose pas senger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in th e past, winged projections are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, regardless of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.

This issue was first raised in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with t hat which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacturer commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel ri m. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.

In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standar d No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, "The Agency did not agree, an d retained the prohibition of even such recessed winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught." Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of recessed winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more t han twenty years ago. We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations of Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ("...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed."), a November 25, 1975 letter t o Mr. James J. Schardt ("Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that @3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do."), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ("...the sta ndard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.").

After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded that the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section @3 provide s that the identified components "shall not incorporate winged projections." We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits all winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.

You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projections may be imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a) (1) ( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United St ates" any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel dis cs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attention: Ms. Erika Jones, Office of Chief Counsel Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is submitted to request a letter ruling from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning any prohibition which may exist with respect to the use of the enclosed articles which are referred to in the automobile accessory trad e as "spinners." On Monday, September 21, 1987, we spoke with Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Senior Attorney for Rule Making, concerning regulations, particularly standard number 211, which may apply to certain wheel accessories. Th rule prohibits the use on passe nger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles of certain wheel nuts, hubcaps, and wheel disks which incorporate winged projections.

We respectfully submit that the sample articles enclosed herewith are not subject to the prohibition of rule 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim when mounted. Consequently, they do not project beyond the tire or the wheel well of the vehic le. Enclosed are pictures which show a spinner mounted on a correct wheel which is 9 1/2 inches in width. As can be seen from the pictures, the spinner does not project beyond the wheel rim. In light of the fact that the enclosed spinners will not projec t beyond the wheel rim and wheel well, we do not believe that they are the type of article prohibited pursuant to rule number 211. That rule is clearly intended to prohibit certain articles which project beyond the wheel well, or at least beyond the whee l rim, thereby creating a potential hazard to pedestrians. The instant articles, since they do not project beyond the wheel well, could not rationally be considered such a hazard. In order for the pedestrian to come into contact with the spinner, that pe destrian would certainly have to be in an extremely precarious position vis-a-vis certain lethal and dangerous parts of the vehicle. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how the spinner in the pictures enclosed could be considered a greater "hazard" than the slotted portions of the wheel which clearly is not prohibited.

Furthermore, it is noted that spinners such as those enclosed herewith are readily available at this time in the United States. Enclosed is a brochure of an automobile accessory company which clearly depicts spinners similar to those which we have enclos ed. As with the sample spinners which we have enclosed, the "spinners" depicted in the brochure do not appear to extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted.

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners pose a hazard when used in passenger vehicles Furthermore, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners fall within the prohibition of rule number 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim; therefore, we submit that they may be imported, offered for sale, sold and used in the United States and your ruling to that effect is requested.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. We request that the enclosed spinners be returned to us after your review.

Very truly yours,

William J. Maloney

WJM:sr

Enclosures

ID: nht87-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/87

FROM: GLENN L. DUNCAN -- THORNE GRODNIK AND RANSEL

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16/88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LE TTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The undersigned represents United Tool and Stamping, Inc., a component supplier for seating systems used in motor vehicles, particularly recreational vehicles (motor homes). FMVSS 207 establishes a standard or performance requirements, using terminology such as "failure" or "shall withstand the following forces". My question is, what is NHTSA's current interpretation of what constitutes a "failure" or inability to "withstand forces".

It is my understanding from talking with various engineers, including Mr. Stan Fray from TRC of Ohio, who I understand performs some testing for NHTSA, that the currently accepted level of performance or definition of failure is that the seat must not se parate from the floor when the test forces are applied, although it may bend or deform. To state it another way, the seat may give, but must not break free from the floor.

Miss Diedre Hahn has indicated the proper way to obtain the answer to this question is to supply you with the question in writing. I would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Respectfully,

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part , any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.

ID: nht87-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 1987

FROM: DAVIS THEKKANATH -- SR. SUPERVISING ENGINEER, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 121

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 9-12-88, TO DAVIS THEKKANATH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 121

TEXT: Section 5.1.1. of the subject regulation addresses air compressor capacity requirements in terms of pump up time, to bring the reservoir pressure from 85 psi to 100 psi for trucks and buses. What happens when the truck has a trailer behind it? Does the air compressor capacity requirement include the volume of service reservoirs for the trailer too? My conversation this morning with Mr. Richard Carter of your office indicates that only the truck's service reservoirs have to be considered for the pump up time. Please confirm.

Thank you,

ID: nht87-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sally P. Tate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sally P. Tate Adaptive Driving Service 2818 Ronco Drive San Jose, CA 95132

Dear Ms Tate:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1987, with reference to the following problem: an owner of a 1987 Toyota Corolla has multiple sclerosis, and instead of walking must use a powered scooter. The scooter is transported by a lift platf orm mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. However, this lift unit "obstructs direct view of -- the factory installed high rear brake light." You propose to install another stop lamp on the post of the lift "so that it will be in dir ect view of the drivers behind....," leaving untouched the original center highmounted stop lamp. You have informed us that California will not sanction the additional lamp unless this agency authorizes it. Vehicles in use are subject to the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard may not be rendered inoperative, in whole or in part, by a person other than the vehicle owner. Installation of any equipment that obstructs the light output of a highmounted stop lamp would render it partially inoperative in our opinion. Because photometric compliance of the lamp is determined from a distance of not less than 10 feet, and b ecause the distance between the Toyota rear lamp and lift unit would appear to be less than that distance, it is probable that one or more of the requisite photometric test points might be obscured by the device.

However, it appears that the prohibition against rendering inoperative may not be violated by the modification you propose. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows an exception for modifica tions made during the manufacturing process or before sale. Under Paragraph S4.3.1.1, if motor vehicle equipment prevents a lamp from compliance with photometric requirements, an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements shall be provided. Wher e a standard provides alternative methods of compliance, alteration of a vehicle or item of equipment so that it meets a different alternative from the one which it originally met does not constitute rendering inoperative within the meaning of the prohib ition.

We believe that your situation is sufficiently similar so that your addition of an auxiliary lamp meeting the photometric requirements would not violate the prohibition. In this instance the fact that the new lamp would not be located directed on the rea r vertical centerline of the vehicle, but slightly to the left of it, would not be of great concern to us. In conclusion, we have no objection to the proposed installation of the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 13, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel F.M.V. #108, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones,

As per my conversations with Mr. Kevin Cabey and Mr. Taylor Vinson, I have been advised to write directly to you to have you assist us with our request.

I will try to be as brief as possible. I work with Physically Disabled individuals and I have been contracted by the State of California to work with a client who has Multiple Sclerosis. She purchased a 1987 Toyota Corolla liftback which obviously has th e high center rear brake light feature. This light in itself poses no problem. However, our client uses a powered scooter since her ability to ambulate is minimized and this scooter can only be transported through the means of a special lift unit mounted on a trailer hitch in the rear of the car. (Please refer to the brochure of Tiger Lift enclosed.) When this lift unit is mounted on the car, it abstracts direct view of the factory installed high rear brake light. We have come up with a solution of moun ting another high rear brake light" on the post of the lift so that it will be in direct view of the drivers behind our client. Our State Chief of Automotive Inspection insists that this rear brake light be visible.

Our snag hinges on the fact that the California State Department of Automotive Inspection will not sanction any location of the high rear brake light (only factory installed), in our case on the post of the lift, unless we receive a letter of authorizati on directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We are therefore requesting and greatly appreciate your efforts in assisting us with this client's need. Our automotive chief has stated that this unit will not be installed unless we are able to receive a written letter of authorization addressing the a cceptance of the installation of another high rear brake light, which can be mounted on the post of this lift unit. The factory installed unit will remain untouched.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this unusual request.

ID: nht87-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses L.P.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/20/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M.B. Mathieson (Std. 301)

TEXT: Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Mathieson:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1987, asking for a clarification of my letter of March 20.

In that letter I answered your question as to whether the results of frontal barrier impact tests that occurred at 30.1 mph with a vehicle that exceeded the test height limits would constitute either a noncompliance with Standard No. 301 or a safety rela ted defect. Because the test has not conducted in accordance with Standard No. 301's conditions I replied that this would not be a noncompliance, and further, that those results "do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehi cle." This statement appears unclear to you.

By my earlier statement I intended to explain that we do not use a safety standard's compliance test results (particularly if the test was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures) as the sole basis for a determination of a safety-relat ed defect in the same aspect of performance governed by that standard. For example, having determined through rulemaking that a particular level of vehicle performance is expected in a 30 mph crash test, it would be inappropriate to use the results from an otherwise identical crash test conducted at 35 mph to form the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the tested vehicles. To do so would constitute, in effect, rulemaking to raise the impact speed in the standard to 35 mph. We c ompletely agree, however, with your statement that "there can be safety-related defects that are not addressed by the standards." We also agree that the manufacturer has the responsibility to address safety defects that become apparent to him through test data or otherwise.

With this background, we will turn to your question. You have now posed a hypothetical in which your tests indicate that a fully-loaded school bus may encounter a severe leakage exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute in a head-on impact of 30 m.p.h. Thi s may be evidence that could lead you to believe that there would be a significant number of failures if a school bus, in its normal operation with full complement of students, encounters a head-on collision at what appears to be a reasonable operating s peed. This combination of factors might appear to pose an unreasonable risk to safety and afford the basis for the determination that a safety related defect exists.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear. Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to yours of March 20, 1987, regarding Thomas Built Buses, L.P. questions resulting from crash tests performed on a proposed vehicle utilizing a Thomas school bus body and a Chevrolet Model #G31303 chassis.

We understand from your letter that since the test parameters of vehicle velocity and vehicle test weight did not meet the "letter of the law" in that the test impact velocity exceeded 30 mph by 1.333%, and the vehicle test weight exceeded the manufactur ers limits as defined in @7.1.6(b) of FMVSS 301, that your office has found the test to be invalid as far as determining the requirements of compliance to the standard are concerned.

We further understand from your letter that final stage manufacturers are not prohibited from manufacturing a vehicle that falls outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's guidelines for maximum unloaded vehicle weight. However, those final stage m anufacturers who build and offer for sale such a vehicle bear full responsibility for certification to FMVSS 301 for such completed vehicles.

We do not understand the basis of the statement in your letter, i.e. "Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of vehicle".

Our interpretation of P.L.8g-563 regarding "failure to comply" and "safety related defects" is that these two possible situations are not necessarily coincident or correlated. In other words, while "failure to comply" will possibly always be considered a safety related defect, there can be safety related defects that are not addressed by the Standards but which carry the full responsibility and associated penalties for report and failure to report when they have become apparent to a vehicle manufacturer .

April 24, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones

In light of the above, we would appreciate your consideration of the following:

Thomas Built Buses, L.P., is contemplating the manufacture of a school bus in the "10,000 lbs. or less" GVWR class. We expect the vehicle to operate frequently at the maximum design GVWR of 10,000 lbs., carrying school children in the normal fulfillment of its' purpose. Our tests have indicated that if this fully and legally loaded vehicle encounters a severe head-on impact of 30 mph there will be a significant fuel system "failure" resulting in a fuel leak exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute.

Question: Does this condition constitute a safety defect in a school bus completed and offered for sale by Thomas Built Buses, L.P.? Thomas Built Buses currently has two prototype vehicles operating in public service.

Your prompt reply would be most helpful to this Company. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, L.P.

M. B. MATHIESON, Director of Engineering

MBM/jm

cc: J. W. Thomas, Jr. J. E. Thomas Roger Chilton Morris Adams Roddey Ligon Tom Mitchell Dale Guthrie

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht87-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: D.F. Landers -- President, Mobile Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/11/83 letter from Frank Berndt to D.F. Landers

TEXT:

D. F. Landers PSI Mobile Products Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043

This is in response to your letter requesting confirmation of a July 11, 1983 determination by this agency that your special tow tractor vehicle is exempt from Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate in your letter that you now have three si zes of tow tractors and that your market may expand to include commercial airline use as well as the Department of Defense.

Based on the information you have provided us, we confirm our previous determinations that baggage tow tractors are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has consistently interpreted the definition of motor vehicle as excl uding vehicles such as airport runway vehicles that are intended and sold solely for off-road use and are not equipped for highway use. Further, we note that section 571.7(c) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that.

No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

Your vehicles might become subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if there is a material change in the facts regarding the intended or actual use, design or sale of your vehicles. Please remember that compliance with all Federal motor vehi cle safety standards is the obligation of each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We appreciate your continuing efforts at classifying correctly your vehicles.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have requested your opinion in the past, regarding the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to our special tow tractor vehicle. (A copy of our most recent correspondence is attached.) The purpose of this letter is to update our files and exemption position.

PSI now manufactures three sizes of tow tractors. These are sold to the Department of Defense agencies only, but may have commercial airline potential sales In the future.

The three vehicle sizes are shown on the chart enclosed along with pertinent specifications. Photographs and brochures are also enclosed for your information and files.

We would appreciate your confirmation that your previous determination that these vehicles are exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still applies.

Yours very truly, D. F. Landers President DFL/mm enclosures (See 7/11/83 letter from NHTSA to D.F. Landers)