ID: 9450

Mr. J. Frank Haasbeek
President
International Transquip Industries, Inc.
6131 Brookhill Drive
Houston, TX 77087-1131

Dear Mr. Haasbeek:

Thank you for your recent letter to Vice President Gore, concerning a rulemaking related to your product. You believe that this agency has proceeded too slowly in the rulemaking. The Vice President has forwarded your letter to me for a reply.

I understand your concern over this issue, but please be assured that this agency is working diligently to reach a final decision concerning this rulemaking. As you know, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in March of this year, and the agency received a number of conflicting comments. We must carefully assess all of the arguments raised by the commenters before reaching a final decision. We are nearing the completion of that process and expect to announce a final decision in January 1994.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

ref:121 d:12/23/93

ID: 9457

Mr. Matt Gerrity
7624 Rohrer Dr.
Downers Grove, IL 60516

Dear Mr. Gerrity:

This responds to your letter, forward to us on December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law.

As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional.

I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Representative Harris W. Fawell United States House of Representatives 2342 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1313

ref:208 d:12/30/93

ID: 9459ez

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking for our concurrence that '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a "California flammability standard" as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, '19006 and '19161. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr. Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restraints by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today.

We hope this information is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about '103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Art Anderson ref:213#302 d:6/9/94

ID: 9460a

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for publication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[i]n the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufactured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one

vehicle, the agency rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 214

ID: 9460b

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:9/25/95

ID: 9465

Mr. Michael S. Marczynski
Sales Representative
Anita's Auto World
529 S. Charles Street
Lansing, MI 48912

Dear Mr. Marczynski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether it would be legal for you to install after-market roll pans and convertible tops on light duty pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by a section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act which provides:

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.

In general, this provision prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative"

prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which have different requirements for convertible trucks: Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. An explanation of these differences follows.

Standard No. 205

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

Standard No. 208

Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. These requirements differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and year of manufacture. The requirements for hard-top and convertible vehicles manufactured in the same year may also differ.

Standard No. 216

Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, are required to comply with Standard No. 216. However, Standard No. 216 does not apply to convertibles.

Standard No. 302

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

In summary, you are responsible for ensuring that, in the process of installing a roll pan or convertible top, you do not remove, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, to the extent that a different standard is applicable to convertibles, modifications which result in the vehicle complying with the standard that applied to convertibles are permitted.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#108#205#208#216#302 d:6/3/94

ID: 9469

Michael J. Siris, Esq.
Attorney at Law
1615 Northern Boulevard
Manhasset, NY 11030

Dear Mr. Siris:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#114 d:3/10/94

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:120#VSA d:4/12/94

ID: 9479

Lawrence P. White, Acting Director
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Department of Transportation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, PA 17122

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1.The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part 568.6).

2.Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push- out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window).

3.The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4.Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the motion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/21/94

ID: 9495

Mr. Perry McGlothan
Quality Assurance Test Specialist
Century Products Company
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056

Dear Mr. McGlothan:

This responds to your letter to me about the head impact protection and protrusion limitation requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. We received under separate cover the three child seats you sent for illustration purposes, samples of Models 4560, 4590 and the STE 1000.

You discuss in your letter a new method you would like to use to attach the head impact protection foam to the child restraint shell. The foam would be attached to the shell by means of two push-in pins, each 1/2 inch in length and with a 3/4 inch diameter head, as distinguished from the padding being glued to the shell as in the past. You stated that this change would better secure the foam padding to the shell and help your manufacturing process. You asked us whether the new method would meet the head impact protection requirement of S5.2.3 (for restraints recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds) and the protrusion limitations of S5.2.4.

As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product. NHTSA may examine the manufacturer's certification in the course of any enforcement action. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and is subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine production units of these models and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You first inquire, "Please advise as to compression deflection," which we understand as asking whether S5.2.3.2 would permit you to secure the foam with the pins. We cannot tell you whether the foam padding would satisfy S5.2.3 of Standard 213. The compression deflection resistance and thickness of the material can only be determined in a compliance laboratory, using the laboratory procedures described in the standard. S5.2.3.2 states that each system surface, except for protrusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by a dummy head must be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. As explained in the next paragraph, the pins we examined appear to satisfy S5.2.4. Further, the pins might not be contactable by the dummy head in Standard 213's dynamic test. However, whether they are contactable can only be determined in the standard's dynamic test.

S5.2.4 requires that any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to S5.2.3 shall meet specified limits on height and radius of exposed edge. Based on our visual inspection, the pins we saw appear to be within those limits. Again, however, the Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for determining compliance in the first instance on you, the manufacturer of the child restraint.

We still have the three seats that you sent us. We plan to dispose of them unless we hear from you.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:4/8/94