ID: nht94-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Griffiths

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John A. Griffiths (OCC-10024)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Griffiths:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specify for a manual transmission vehicle, a "neutral safety switch," or other means to prevent starting of the vehicle unless the clutch is fully depr essed. The answer is no.

Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, specifies starter interlocks for automatic transmission vehicles, but not for manual transmission vehicles. (See S3.1.3.) None of the other safety s tandards specify that motor vehicles include a device of the type you describe, or specify means to prevent starting of a manual transmission vehicle unless the clutch is depressed.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robin Liu -- President, Introbusy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Robin Liu To Stephen Wood

TEXT: Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter of April 18, 1994, with respect to a supplementary stop lamp that you intend to import into the United States. You have asked whether you "need to get any official approval or to apply any license to ensure that installing t his product in motor vehicle will not violate the regulation of Transportation Department."

There are no requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) that a supplementary stop lamp must meet. You do not have to receive DOT approval, or apply for a license.

The authority of this agency over installation of supplementary lighting equipment differs, according to whether the equipment is "original" (installed by the vehicle dealer or manufacturer before the vehicle's first sale) or "aftermarket" (installed aft er the vehicle's first sale).

We believe that you intend your lamp for sale in the aftermarket. If your lamp is installed by the owner of the vehicle itself, there are no Federal laws that must be considered. However, it is subject to the laws of the States in which the lamp is ope rated. We are unable to advise you on these laws and suggest that you write for an interpretation to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, if your lamp is installed by someone other than a vehicle owner, specifically by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) the question must be asked whether your lamp will "render inoperative in whole or in part" the center stop lamp or other stop lamps which have been installed in accordance with a Federal regulation (49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Literally, these lamps will continue to operate; however, if their signal is not clearly perceived as

2

stop signals, then, in our view, they have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

The supplementary stop lamp depicted in the photos you enclosed is mounted atop a vehicle's center highmounted stop lamp. It connects "+/- wire to manufacturer's braking light system." The one shown is in the shape of a snowman, but others are available as Santa Claus, pumpkins, sports figures, etc. The photo of your snowman stop lamp in operation indicates that an interior bulb shines through the exterior and, in this case, gives a distinctly white light in contrast to the red of the center lamp on t op of which it is mounted. Thus, we believe that when the snowman lamp operates simultaneously with the other stop lamps there could be momentary confusion on the part of a following driver, in other words, that the stop lamps will be rendered partially inoperative.

If your lamp is installed before the first sale of a vehicle (for example, by the vehicle dealer), under Standard No. 108 (S5.1.3) the question must be asked whether your lamp would impair the effectiveness of the center and other stop lamps. Because of the possibility of momentary confusion discussed above, we believe that your lamp could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps which are required under Standard No. 108.

There is also the possibility that installation of the lamp could affect compliance of the vehicle with the interior field of view requirements (S5.1.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

In summary, while there is no restriction upon your importation and sale of this device, we believe that its installation would raise problems of compliance with Federal laws.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Guy Dorleans -- Valeo Vision

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/20/94 From Guy Dorleans To Mike Perel

TEXT: Dear M. Dorleans:

This responds to your FAX of April 20, 1994, to Mike Perel of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

The drawing in your letter depicts a four-lamp headlamp arrangement in which the outermost lamps (lower beam) incorporate HB4 light sources, and the innermost lamps (upper beam), HB3 light sources. In operation, the outermost lamps alone provide the low er beam. However, when the upper beam switch is thrown, all lamps are energized. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an (sic) also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High B eam."

Paragraph S7.5 of Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp systems such as the one you describe. The photometrics that apply to such systems are set forth in paragraph S7.5(b): "The photometrics as specified in sub paragraphs (c) through (e) of this paragraph (depicted in Figure 26) . . . ." Because subparagraph (d) applies to a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and Types HB3 and HB4 are single filament sources, the applicable subparagr aph is (e), and, more specifically, the four-headlamp specifications of (e)(3).

This will confirm your understanding. Under S7.5(e)(3), the lower beam is to be produced by the outermost lamps and designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of Figure 15; the upper beam by the innermost lamps and designed to conform to the upp er beam requirements of Figure 15. This is confirmed in Figure 26. However, the photometrics of Figure 15A will apply on and after September 1, 1994, (Paragraph S7.1).

2

Simultaneous activation of both upper and lower beams is permitted by S5.5.8 of Standard No. 108 for headlighting systems designed to conform to Figure 15. Later this year, we will amend Standard No. 108 to substitute Figure 15A for Figure 15, effective September 1, 1994.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: Hellfried Sandig, Reitter & Schefenacker GMBH & Co. KG

TO: Richard van Iderstine

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/94 from John Womack to Hellfried Sandig (A42; STD 108)

TEXT: I have your Fax-Nr. from Mr. Althoff/Holla. We are manufacturer from lighting equipments too and we have a rear combination lamp with one stop lamp and two tail lamps.

My question:

is if necessary, that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?

In the past, we had only a combination stop/tail with a 32/3 CP filament lamp. And with ECE Reglement No. 7 we don't have this problem.

ID: nht94-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: Walter Lavis

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/94 from John Womack to Walter Lavis (A42; STD 108)

TEXT: Enclosed are three proto-type samples of my safety reflectors along with my introduction literature.

I spoke to Jim Gilkey and he referred me to you. My understanding is that using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry. I have approached several trucking companies and they liked the c oncept and asked if it was DOT approved. Therefore, this is the reason for my enquiry.

Please advise if you have any further information regarding this matter.

ID: nht94-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/19/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color . . .

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with bre aks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

2

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers an d increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ab ility to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter . . . When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tap e immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negativ ely affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the ta pe on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interru ptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

3

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,

ID: nht94-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/19/94 From S. Greiff To US Department of Transportation (OCC-9886)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Greiff:

This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301.

Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standar ds referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph.

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,

ID: nht94-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From Alberto Negro To John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking if Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection "allows the advisory information required by . . . S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages."

On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non-English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be "other information." However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non-E nglish label.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information.

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,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. and Mrs. Hal Sullivan

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 8/30/93 From Hal Sullivan To NHTSA Chief Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter to David Elias, formerly of this office, requesting an interpretation of the term "rated cargo load" used in 49 CFR @ 567.5. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state in your letter that you purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. You state that, if this motor home is equipped with "the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks," it will exceed its gross ve hicle weight rating (GVWR) when the available water tanks are filled to capacity. You characterize this as "seriously inadequate carrying capacity," and ask if this violates NHTSA's regulations. As explained below, if a vehicle exceeds its GVWR when lo aded with its intended cargo, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties.

By way of background, @ 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to certify the compliance of its new vehicles with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA issued its vehicle certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) to implement @ 114. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from failing to comply with any regulation issued under @ 114. Under @ 109 of the Safety Act, violations of @ 108(a)(1)(E) are su bject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

NHTSA's certification regulation specifies the content of the certification label, and requires manufacturers to assign a GVWR to its new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weig ht of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable sa fety standards. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR @ 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR

2

"shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.)

There is no express definition for the term "rated cargo load" in Part 567 or elsewhere in NHTSA's regulations. However, NHTSA expects the GVWR (which includes rated cargo load) to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, we ight, load-carrying capacity and intended use. NHTSA is concerned about the potentially adverse effects on safety that might result from assigning too low a GVWR to a vehicle. NHTSA recognizes that vehicle overloading may create a serious safety proble m and will take appropriate action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, when operated in its intended manner, exceeds the assigned GVWR.

Thank you for bringing this matter about the Pace Arrow to our attention. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting you for more information about your experience with the vehicle. Meanwhile, if you have further questions, please co ntact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/6/94 From Ivan Bost To Mary Versailles (OCC-9864)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bost:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994, requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 poun ds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver.

Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A "rear designated seating position" is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An "outboard d esignated seating position" is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of th e vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Sectio n S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 , with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachabl e upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward-facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced.

Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of

2

Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions.

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,