ID: nht93-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/93 from Lanny Kness to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR S571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no.

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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR S 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.)

Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light."

For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility:

(1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: nht93-5.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from Michael Love to Mary Versailles (OCC 8506)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR S571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. "For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria." You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation:

When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a "plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female." Therefore, these positions would be considered "designated seating positions" at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed.

Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific "designated seating position" when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test

conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a "designated seating position" for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a "designated seating position" was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances.

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.

ID: nht93-5.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September 1970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III.

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht93-5.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/93 from John Womack to Michael F. Hecker (A41; Std. 222; Part 571; VSA 108(A)(2)(a)

TEXT:

I have reviewed the letter sent to our Mr. Michael H. Dunn on January 29, 1993 and as a result, I am providing the following response.

We fully understand that NHTSA neither approves, or certifies, products such as the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System. We are very careful to explain this to customers when we are asked if the agency has approved the device.

In regards to Micho Industries certification of compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, there appears to be some confusion as a result of past correspondence with your office. While we understand that there are no standards directly applicable to lap bar restraints, it was our understanding that once the R-BAR was mounted to the seat it was part of the seat and subject to the requirements of the seat. This was re-emphasized in a letter from your office (to Micho Industries) on May 14, 1992 when Mr. Paul Rice stated "once the restraining bar is attached to the seat back, it is part of the seat back. Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4 (c).".

In the same letter Mr. Rice further states that "Manufacturers are required to certify that vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure."

Previous correspondence from your office has stated that "the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard."

Based on our understanding of the regulations and past correspondence with your office, we have developed the R-BAR so that it was in compliance to regulations that apply to the seat as well as other regulations that apply to the general safety of the school bus. Further, it has been our understanding that, as the manufacturer, it was our responsibility to "certify" that compliance on installations in existing buses.

John, we do not want to mislead anyone or misrepresent the product, our company or your agency. After 8 years of development and testing we believe the R-BAR will stand on its own merits. If, after consideration of the above, it remains the position of your agency that Micho Industries stating "certification of the R-BAR to compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" would be possibly misleading - then we

will of course refrain from making that statement. In the meantime Micho Industries, and it's representatives, will respond to customer inquiries, regarding compliance, with the following statements;

At this time there are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are directly applicable to the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System.

Properly installed the R-BAR will not violate any regulation or standard, or make inoperative any existing safety device or feature of the bus in which it is installed.

I look forward to your comments and thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht93-5.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Importation of type M-151 military vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Harold R. Burke (A42; Part 591; VSA Sec 571.7(a))

TEXT:

At the suggestion of Mr. George Shifflett, I am contacting you with respect to the importation of approximately 8,000 type M-151 military vehicles ("Jeeps") originally built in the United States between 1973-75. These vehicles have never been used and are currently located outside this country. It is my client's intention to return these vehicles to the United States and resell them for use here. Specifically, my client requests a legal opinion as to the following questions:

1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as "foreign" vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?

2. If they are not considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

3. If they are considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

If I can provide any additional information with respect to these questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you and your earliest reply will be appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher Banner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-21-93 from Christopher Banner to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8477)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as "kit cars." In the "kit car" version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle.

This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1).

1. NEW BODY ON NEW CHASSIS. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a "final stage manufacturer" of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

2. NEW BODY ON USED CHASSIS. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis.

To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), COMBINING NEW AND USED COMPONENTS. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards.

3. KIT CARS. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards.

If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules.

I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" that briefly describes each of the safety standards.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: James Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/26/93 from John Womack to James Z. Peepas (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are suppliers of conspicuity systems to the container industry. I respectfully request an interpretation as to how much reflective 2" striping is required when a load is placed on the chassis.

Please note the following pictures enclosed.

A) shows a 48 foot chassis with conspicuity striping and no load B) shows gooseneck area C) shows closeup with gooseneck area hidden by load D) loaded chassis.

The question is on a 48 foot chassis, if the gooseneck is 8 feet and only 40 feet of the chassis frame is visible, should the reflective striping that is visible when loaded by 50% of 48 ft. or 24 ft or 50% of 40 ft. or 20 ft?

Also enclosed is standard chassis print.

I have also enclosed a Maersk loaded chassis. Please note that because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot from the road surface. Has there been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments?

I will be calling you next week to discuss this further.

ID: nht93-5.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, DOT

TITLE: Painted reflex reflectors for passenger cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/13/93 from John Womack to Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This responds to my fax from May 3, 1993, Mr. Womack's reply from May 10, 1993 and our telephone call from today.

I had asked you whether it is permissible to paint reflex reflectors (exterior painting) for motor vehicles and under which conditions. Although you had already told me that it is permissible provided that all requirements of Standard 108 including the referenced SAE J594f are met I have to ask for further information.

1. Does the combination "Plastic + paint" have to meet SAE J576c? (Outdoor exposure test takes three!!!! years so that we cannot start our production now!)

2. Is it sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested according to SAE J576c?

3. If it is not sufficient how can we get an exception to the rule?

I want to highlight again that our production will be changed from painting to 2-color-molding in December 1993. Painting is only a transitional process!

Please protect this request as a confidential business information.

I would appreciate your response until next week.

Thank you very much in advance.