ID: nht95-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 12, 1995

FROM: K. Olsen

TO: John Womack, active Chief of Council, Office of Chief of Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO K. OLSEN (A43; STD. 120); ALSO ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROB PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD

TEXT: On May 9, 1994, Dealer purchased from Manufacturer, a new 1994 16' bumper pull flatbed trailer. This trailer had two 3500 lb. GVWR axles. This trailer was purchased from the manufacturer by the Dealer equipped with used tires.

On May 17, 1994 Dealer showed trailer to Customer. Customer was told that for $ 1175.00 the trailer comes with the tires on it or for an additional $ 200.00 dealer would put new tires on the trailer. Customer chose to purchase the trailer with the u sed tires at the lower price. The trailer was wired for brakes and lights but electrical plug was left off so one could be installed to match up with the existing electrical plug on a customers vehicle. Customer's vehicle had neither a brake control or existing electrical plug, so Dealer offered to sell the Customer a brake control for customer's truck and electrical plugs for brakes and lights for an additional $ 50.00 and Dealer would install them at no additional cost. Customer chose not to purcha se brake control or electrical plugs from Dealer.

On June 10, 1994 Customer's employee pulled said trailer (that weighs 1550 lbs.) down the freeway, loaded with a Uniloader (that weighs 6000 lbs.) pulled by a half-ton, short wheel base pickup (which has a 6,000 GVWR and weighs approx. 4800 lbs.). Th e driver of the vehicle lost control of the truck and trailer and the truck and trailer turned over.

The Customer is now bringing a law suit against the Dealer charging that the accident was caused by the Dealer for selling him a new trailer with used tires (and improperly wired brakes). The investigating officer's statement on the accident report r ead "Vehicle was Southbound in the # 3 lane when the trailer began to swerve uncontrollable. Vehicle ran off of the right side of the road and overturned. The trailer was carrying a CASE UNI Loader Model IF40." "According to Dennis Platt of UHP Safety Inspection, the brakes had not been working. This was shown by rust present on the inside of the left brake drum. Also, Dennis measured the tire tread to be 1/32 of an inch on both rear tires and 2/32 of an inch on both front tires. Both front tires al so had uneven tread. The wrecker driver at Sorensen's Marine and Autobody said that it appeared the trailer brakes had not been wired properly."

The reason for this request for interpretation is to try and determine the liability of the Manufacturer, Dealer or Customer in this matter.

ID: nht95-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 13, 1995

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: Philip R. Recht, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Information, FMVSS No. 118 "Power Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN (A43; STD. 118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

This is a request for interpretation relating to the maximum squeezing force requirement in Paragraph S5 of FMVSS 118. Paragraph S5 states the maximum squeezing force performance requirements required to be met by power-operated window, partition or roo f panel systems (for simplicity we will hereinafter refer to these as "power operated systems") which are capable of being closed under conditions other than those permitted in Paragraph S4, Operating Requirements.

The purpose of Paragraph S5 is to enable manufacturers to provide power operated systems which can be closed with remote control devices capable of operation beyond the distances specified in S4 or under circumstances other than those expressly limited i n Paragraph S4 by providing an automatic reversing system that limits the squeezing force to 100 Newtons. The intent of the 100 Newton squeezing force limitation in Paragraph S5 is to avoid injury to a person whose hand may be caught in the opening of t he power operated system as it is closing.

The 100 Newton force limitation is a restriction on power-operated window and roof panel systems which must be assured of closing under all environmental conditions and especially under low temperatures or in the event of some ice or other interference i n the track of the window or roof panel. Volkswagen requests your interpretation whether a system which reverses the closing of the window partition or roof panel within the 100 Newton limitation on an initial attempt to close, but which is then capable of closing with a higher force limitation in order to overcome any resistance due to low temperature or snow and ice interference conditions would still comply with the provisions of the standard.

Such a system would operate as follows:

1. An attempt is made to close the power-operated system and because of an obstruction or resistance to closing it reverses before exerting a squeezing force of 100 Newtons or more and then stops.

2. In order to assure that the window or roof panel is closed, the operator again initiates the closing and this time the automatic reversal system is not triggered at the 100 Newton limit but at a higher force level to overcome the resistance.

The intent of the Standard and to requirement of paragraph S5 is that in the event of an initial obstruction from a human hand or possibly a pet, the system would reverse within the injury avoidance threshold of 100 Newtons. There is no specific provisi on in paragraph S5 with regard to repetitive closing operations. (The higher force level of the second closing operation is not a safety concern because the operator would be alerted to avoid action until the opening is clear and any person in the area w ould be alerted to the fact that the operator is attempting to close the window or roof panel.) Volkswagen therefore requests your interpretation whether the squeezing force limitation of Paragraph S5 applies only to the first operation of a system and n ot to subsequent operations immediately thereafter, which are separately initiated by an operator in order to assure the closing of the roof panel or power window under adverse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the window or ro of panel track.

Because the issue relates to certain vehicle design decisions, your response as soon as possible is requested and will be appreciated.

ID: nht95-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Donnell W. Morrison

TO: Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.-49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1, 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO DONNELL W. MORRISON (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Administrator Martinez:

This in in further reference to my February 14, 1995 letter regarding the cited sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. As of this date I have not received a reply to my inquiry. A copy of the February 14 letter is enclosed.

As I indicated in my February 14 letter I am working on a project and need to know if the cited sections of the CFR have been amended to allow the rear identification lamps and the rear clearance lamps to be mounted at a location other than specified in the tables mentioned above. In other words can both the rear identification and the rear clearance lamps be mounted at bed level. The tables in Standard 108 indicate the rear lamps mentioned are to be mounted as high as practicable.

A timely response to my inquiry would be very much appreciated.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

D. W. Morrison Engr. Consultant

1005 Dr innon Drive

Morristown, Tenn. 37814

615-587 0534

February 14, 1995

Honorable Ricardo Martinez, Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re:49CFR571.108-S4, Table 1 49CFR571.108-S4, Table 11

Dear Administrator Martinez:

I am doing some research on a project and need to know if your organization has amended the cited sections of the CFR.

The question has been raised since I notice many semi-trailers in operation on the highway with all of the rear lighting devices down at bed level. If I understand the wording of the cited sections correctly the identification lamps are to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle and on the vertical center line.

If the standards have been amended I would appreciate your furnishing me with a copy of the rule making action. Notice of Proposed Rule Making and the Final Rule.

Sincerely,

DONNELL W. MORRISON

ID: nht93-7.18

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Frank Williams (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 121

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

I have a patent applied for and am presently marketing a device which sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cat.

The device does not [Illegible Word] into the [Illegible Word] system but [Illegible Word] the [Illegible Word] button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged.

[Illegible Words]

Thank you,

ID: nht93-7.19

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Dougherty -- C.A.P.S. Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Thomas Dougherty to John Womack (OCC 8995)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (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 means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.2

DATE: September 30, 1993 Est.

FROM: Randolph Schwarz

TO: John Messera -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Randolph Schwarz (A42; Std. 116)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your help in getting a few short questions answered regarding DOT 5 silicone brake fluid. I had called the NHTSA Hotline and was advised that, as the Engineer for FMVSS 116, you are currently the appropriate person to contact.

My basic question is that when retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, does one have to be concerned with the compatibility of this fluid's seal swelling additives with various elastomers that may be used in past and present brake systems, such as SBR, EP, EPDM, neoprene, etc?.

Would the fact that a DOT 5 brake fluid meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 insure such elastomer compatibility?

With regard to elastomers, does FMVSS 116 only address SBR compatibility (SBR cup tests)?

If FMVSS 116 only mentions SBR, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification or have an advisory note on the product container regarding elastomer compatibility/incompatibility?

Product information from Dow Corning and Union Carbide differ in FMVSS 116 DOT 5 requirement for maximum viscosity at -40 F (900 cSt vs. 1,500 cSt respectively). What should the correct specification be?

If it would help expedite matters, feel free to write your responses directly on this letter. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

ID: nht93-7.20

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Michinori Hachiya -- Director and General Manager, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Michinori Hachiya (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter requests your opinion regarding several aspects of the labeling requirements in the recent mandatory air bag rule. Our specific questions are set forth below.

1. Section 4.5.1(b)(2) of FMVSS 208, as amended in the recent final rule, states with regard to the information placed on the air bag warning label on the sun visor that "No other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the label is affixed." May the same information appear on the visor in French, immediately following the English text? Permitting the addition of a French translation would facilitate harmonization with Canadian requirements for dual language labels. The French translation would add no information that contributes to "information overload," in our opinion, nor is it likely to cause confusion.

2. Section 4.5.1(a) states that the air bag maintenance label may be combined with the air bag warning label, but section 4.5.1(b) generally prohibits the addition of information to the warning label. We assume that the more specific statement in section 4.5.1(a) is controlling, and the two labels may be combined on the same side of the sun visor. If this assumption is correct, are there restrictions on the manner in which the two labels may be combined? For example, may the air bag maintenance information be inserted into the warning label information immediately prior to the words "see owner's manual for further information and explanations"? This sequence would avoid the necessity of referring twice to the owner's manual for further information.

3. The mandatory air bag rule establishes type size and format requirements for the air bag maintenance label (section 4.5.1(a)), but no similar requirements for the air bag warning label in section 4.5.1 (b). Are we correct in understanding that the lettering of the warning label may be of any size or format, so long as the letters are legible? May different type size and formats be used if the two labels are combined?

4. NHTSA's Consumer Information Regulations provide that a utility vehicle rollover warning label may be affixed to the driver's side sun visor, and the label must include language urging the use of seat belts at all times. See 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1). However, the mandatory air bag rule prohibits placing (1) any additional information on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label and (2) any other information about the need to wear seat belts anywhere on the sun visor. 49 CFR 571.208, section 4.5.1(b)(2). The mandatory air bag rule did not explicitly amend the consumer information provision to prohibit the sun visor location of the rollover warning label. Since part 575 continues to explicitly authorize

the sun visor location for the rollover label, we believe that these requirements can be reconciled by interpreting them to permit the rollover label to be placed on the opposite side of the sun visor from the air bag warning label. Do you agree with this interpretation? We understand that GM and Ford have filed petitions to reconsider section 4.5.1(b)(2) which raises the same issue.

5. It is our understanding that warning labels that do not refer to air bags or seat belts may continue to be placed on the side of the sun visor opposite from the air bag warning label. Nissan currently places a label on the sun visor of a convertible model which provides instructions regarding the use of the convertible top. May this type of label continue to be placed on the sun visor, so long as it is on the side of the visor opposite from the air bag warning label?

We request NHTSA to promptly consider these issues due to our lead time requirements. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht93-7.21

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Kathy Rose -- Account Executive, FitzGerald Corporation

TO: Glen Beck -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Kathy Rose (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I called your office today and spoke to Bill Poole. I have a question regarding the "trailer conspicuity" ruling, enclosed is a copy of the first and last page of this ruling.

The FitzGerald Corporation is producing a "trailer skirting" aerodynamic product for van trailers (please see the enclosed literature piece for this product). In regards to the conspicuity ruling, we often have questions from our customers regarding whether it is legal to have the retroreflective tape that is regulated to be applied to the length of the trailer be placed below the trailer, on the trailer skirting (please see drawing enclosed on last page).

We appreciate your help on this and look forward to hearing from you.

Attachments: (Federal Register and Aero Flair brochure omitted.)

- - - -

11/8/93 letter from Joseph N. Cindrich (NHTSA) to Kathy Rose:

Your letter dated October 12, 1993 regarding Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108 was referred to us by Federal Highway Administration.

By copy of this letter, your request has been forwarded to our Washington Office of Enforcement (NEF-01), NHTSA Headquarters, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You should be hearing directly from them regarding any further contact.

We suggest you call our Auto Safety Hotline to get additional information on specific defects, crash tests, recalls, tire quality grading, odometer complaints, and other auto safety questions. (See enclosed pamphlet) The toll-free number is 1-800-424-9393.

Sincerely,

Craig Miller for Joseph N. Cindrich, Regional Administrator, NHTSA

- - - -

10/15/93 letter from Glenn R. Beck (Federal Highway Administration) to Joseph Cindrich:

The attached correspondence was received at our division office from the FitzGerald Corporation who is seeking an interpretation of your Final Rule, Docket No. 80-9 associated with 49 CFR Part 571, Standard No. 108. It is being forwarded to your office for whatever action you deem appropriate.

Thank you for your interest in motor carrier and highway safety.

Sincerely,

Robert Frank for Glenn R. Beck, State Director, U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, Region Nine

ID: nht93-7.22

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: Test Procedure for FMVSS 214

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/28/94 from John G. Womack to Saburo Inui (A42; STD 214)

TEXT: We request confirmation of our interpretation of the means to establish vehicle attitude during the testing for compliance with FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, as well as clarification of certain ambiguities in the test procedure.

S6.1, Test Weight, provides that "[e]ach passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity . . . plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from impact areas in secure places in the vehicle."

S6.2, Vehicle test attitude, defines "fully loaded condition" as the "test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1."

The term, "fully loaded attitude," used in S6.2, is not defined.

Toyota assumes that the "test weight" described in S6.1 includes the weight of one front seat and one rear seat dummy, but it is not clear whether the "added test equipment" is added to the "test weight" or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are to be removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." It is also unclear whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment.

2

We also assume that the term, "fully loaded attitude," describes the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition" defined in S6.1 (subject to the requested clarifications). Toyota requests confirmation of that interpretation.

Since these issues can affect compliance with the Standard, we request that NHTSA amend the Test Procedure to ensure that all manufacturers and laboratories employ exactly the procedures in conducting compliance testing.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Mr. Soichiro "Chuck" Okudaira of my staff at (202) 775-1707 or our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (703) 799-7447.

ID: nht93-7.23

DATE: October 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/93 from Margret Schmock von Ohr to Taylor Vinson (OCC-8841)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors.

In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f.

You ask now whether "the combination plastic + paint" has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule.

S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify . that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances.

Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption.

You have asked that this request be treated "as a confidential business

information." We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request.