ID: nht95-2.43

ID: nht95-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/10/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10789)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Echt:

We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system.

Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked:

"1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissib le under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver."

Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original e quipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use.

Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementa ry lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within t he meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system.

Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Hindson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/15/94 LETTER FROM TOM HINDSON TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10619)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in secti ons 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 o f the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehi cles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximate ly 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a general fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please fee l free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/29/94 LETTER FROM ALLEN F. BRAUNINGER TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10534)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This responds to your letter asking whether a window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats.

The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The two criteria are whether:

(1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

(2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. 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 informa tion about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquire d and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an "accessory" and thus motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle.

However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents cause d by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Fouts -- President, Earl's Performance Products

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/8/94 LETTER FROM ROBERT E. FOUTS TO PHILLIP RECHT (OCC 10555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fouts:

This responds to your question whether the whip test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, can be interpreted to permit a modification to the test apparatus to facilitate your brake hose's meeting the whip test. As exp lained below, the answer is no.

You describe your brake hose as made of "extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid." You state your brake hose can meet all Standard No. 106 test specifications except for the whip test (See S6.3). The whip test specifies fastening the brake ho se on a test apparatus at two ends and cycling for 35 hours. You state because of "aggravated cyclic stress," your brake hoses fail before 35 hours. To prevent such failures, you wish to add a "whip dampener," a movable "spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing", to the brake hose. In addition to the two ends, the whip test apparatus will mount the brake hose at the "whip dampener." You wish to know whether the whip test can be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the "whip dampene r."

In our opinion, S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the "whip dampener." S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at "capped end fittings" on one end and "open end fittings" on the other, and spec ifies no mounting points in between. Thus, a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at a "whip dampener," which is not an end fitting, would not meet Standard No. 106.

However, the issues raised in your letter have led us to consider amending the whip test to permit the "whip dampener" when testing steel braided brake hoses. Accordingly, we will initiate rulemaking to further consider the issues.

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

ID: nht95-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/29/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10826); ALSO ATTACHED TO 2/7/94 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/6/94 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JEFFREY D. SHETLER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shetler:

We are responding to your FAX of March 29, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

On May 6, 1994, we advised you that a motorcycle headlamp with an upper beam projector on one side of the vertical centerline and a lower beam projector on the other did not comply with Standard No. 108. You now ask whether the headlamp would comply if an exterior housing were installed on the headlamp which "provides the appearance of two headlamps."

This modification in the design does not result in a complying headlamp. Regardless of its exterior appearance, the lamp remains a single headlamp incorporating both an upper and lower beam projector. Since both projectors are within a single headlamp, both projectors must be on the vertical centerline, as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Even if the upper and lower beam projectors were in separate units, neither in itself would be a complying headlamp, and hence not a two-lamp system that could be mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. 108 does not permit moto rcycles to have a headlamp system with asymmetrical beam location.

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

ID: nht95-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel

TO: Mark Warlick -- Four Winds International Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/8/95 LETTER FROM MARK WARLICK TO ED GLANCY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a mi nimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined are a makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is s et forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in m otion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designat ed seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whethe r an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 18, 1995

FROM: Bill Bristol -- Treadway Exports Ltd.

TO: Walter Myers -- Legal Dept., U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/26/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Bill Bristol (A44; Std. 109; Std. 119)

TEXT: MR. MYERS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN ANSWERING MY TELEPHONE CALL AS WE DISCUSSED IN OUR CONVERSATION THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA NOW REQUIRES THAT ALL TIRES ENTERING THE COUNTRY MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT MUST BE CERTIFIED BY AN AGENCY LIKE YOURS. ALSO IT REQUIRES THAT THE TIRE MANUFACTURERS BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME LETTER WHERE THE D.O.T. STANDARDS ARE EXPLAINED. AS YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE ALL REPUTABLE AND WELL KNOWN COMPANIES. PLEASE SEND US YOUR LETTER CERTIFYING THE D.O.T. STANDARDS TH AT ALL TIRES SOLD BY TREADWAY EXPORTS LTD. AND TREADWAY AMERICA INC. THAT HAVE THE D.O.T. ON THEM ARE ROAD WORTHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFETY STANDARD CODE.

Enclosure: Declaracion de Calidad y Conformidad (omitted).

Enclosure

January 11, 1995

ASF 3283-20.80

To Whom it may concern:

Subject: Tires manufactured by Uniroyal-Goodrich Canada Inc.

In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act requires a tire manufacturer or importer to certify that all tires manufactured or imported for the Canadian market comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Regulations (CMVTSR). There is no provision for approval by Transport Canada, the Canadian government department responsible for the application of the Motor Vehicle Tire Safety Act. Tires and certification documentation are randomly inspected by Transport Canada and selec ted tires are tested on behalf of Transport Canada to ensure the validity of tire companies' self certification programs.

We, the Audit Inspection, Vehicle Importation and Component Testing Division of the Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, state that all motor vehicle tires, of any size, manufactured by Uniroyal-Goodrich Canada Inc. and bearing the Natio nal Tire Safety Mark (a small maple leaf on one sidewall of the tire) are recognized by us as being produced, tested, and certified by their manufacturer in full conformity with all safety standards applicable in this country.

This document is valid for two years from its date.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned by phone at (613)998-2157 or by fax at (613)998-4831.

Yours Truly,

Claude Roy P.Eng. Chief, Audit Inspection, Vehicle Importation and Component Testing Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation

Transport Canada

ID: nht95-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Scott E. Mack -- Sr Product Manager, Philips Lighting Company

TO: Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: "Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-108" Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SCOTT E. MACK (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Please review the attached ETL test report regarding Philips Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights and confirm your agreement that they are incompliance with FMVSS-108. While this product appears to be colored when not in use when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C. The test report indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight.

Please forward your confirmation to:

Scott Mack Sr. Product Manager Philips Lighting Co. 200 Franklin Square Driv Somerset, NJ 08875

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Attachment

REPORT

ETL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

INDUSTRIAL PARK CORTLAND, NEW YORK 13045

Order No. 97540-215

Date: April 11, 1995

REPORT NO. 550319

"PHILIPS H6054 DOT H" 142mm X 200mm TYPE 2B1 COLOR CLEAR SEALED BEAM HEADLAMP UNIT

RENDERED TO

PHILIPS LIGHTING COMPANY 300 FRANKLIN SQUARE DRIVE SOMERSET, NJ 08875-6800 INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective as of the date of this report and indicated S AE Standards as requested by the client.

Summary

The following is a summary of the results of tests of the device performed in accordance with FMVSS 108 and subreferenced SAE Standards.

Tests Standards Remarks Color J578c Complies

AUTHORIZATION

Purchase Order No. HQ 133175K.

(Remainder of report is omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Merridy R. Gottlieb

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10723)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles w ithout obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowa nces to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should prov ide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applic able FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standar d No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic saf ety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperat ive" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the d ynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.