ID: nht93-4.20

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: David L. Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/7/93 from John Womack to David Degenstein (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Kenworth Truck Company, a manufacturer of heavy duty Class 7 and 8 trucks and truck tractors, respectfully submits the following request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.

FMVSS 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. One of the vehicle controls regulated by this standard is the automatic vehicle speed system, or cruise control.

Kenworth is in the process of developing a new product that will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob (see the attached photographs). One switch in the console will control the SET and RESUME functions of the cruise control, and the other switches will control the engine brake. The switches are operable by the driver, and the identification is visible to the driver in accordance with S5.1 of Standard No. 101; therefore, Kenworth believes this location to be in compliance. For your information, the switch which controls the ON and OFF function of the cruise control will remain located on the dash panel. Of course, while operating, the cruise control can be disengaged by depressing the brake, or clutch pedal.

Illumination requirements for control identifications are specified in S5.3, and listed in Table 1(a), column 4, of Standard No. 101. Accordingly, Automatic - Vehicle Speed control (cruise control) is listed on Table 1(a) and accompanied by the word "yes" under column 4, indicating illumination is required whenever the headlights are activated. Exception to the illumination requirement is allowed provided the control is mounted to the floor, floor console, or steering column.

Kenworth requests an interpretation regarding the applicability of the illumination requirement to a transmission shift lever mounted cruise control switch. Kenworth believes this cruise control switch location is similar, relative to driver's accessibility and visibility of the control, to an automobile switch located on a floor console, and therefore, illumination should not be necessary or required.

Please confirm that our proposed location for a cruise control switch does not require illumination, and that the location complies with FMVSS No. 101.

We look forward to hearing from you concerning our request. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

(Attached photos and drawing omitted.)

ID: nht93-4.21

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Richard Glover -- Director of New Product Development, Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company, Inc.

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from John Womack to Richard Glover (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I had attempted to call you concerning the possibility of including a bar code which could be automatically scanned at the bottom of the Car Seat Registration Card which consumers fill out. This bar code would contain model number, date of manufacturer, and serial number for the product that the card represents. We feel that by adding an automatically scanned bar code section to the card, that it will eliminate the possibility of mis- keying any of this information, in as much as the human element has been removed from the card. We would request a white section to be allowed in the portion of the card which is currently specified to be a 10 percent minimum gray scale background. I have sent you a mock up of the possible location that this bar code may reside in, for your consideration. We have noticed on the cards which are coming back to us at Evenflo so far, that if any postal damage has occurred to the card, that is very likely to occur on the bottom edge of the card. As a result of that, it may be more advantageous to move this white space into the area immediately below the area that the consumer fills in. It would be approximately the same width as the zone that the consumer fills in, and simply be a white space slightly further down into the card. It would leave the gray background around the outside perimeter of the card and would allow us space to openly print the model number, date of manufacture, and serial number in case there were any difficulties in bar code reading.

I would appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise us, as we are near the point of having to print additional cards at this time, and release printing lots to our printing company are at a rate of 500,000 cards per lot. If this will require a petition for a change in the current rules, please advise me so that we may petition as soon as possible. I remain,

Attachment (Child Restraint Registration Card) omitted.

ID: nht93-4.22

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Kokal -- Champagne Imports

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-93 from Daniel L. Kokal to Johnathan Womack (OCC 8624)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, 1993, requesting use of continuous surety bonding for importation of nonconforming vehicles under the Registered Importer program.

As you have informed us, (c)urrently, single entry bonds are filed with each (nonconforming) vehicle at 150% of the vehicle's value . . . .", and that this is expensive for the importer of Canadian vehicles which "rarely, if ever, require safety modifications to meet U.S. standards." You propose a continuous bond which would cover more than one vehicle, with the same level of value. The example you give is that of a continuous bond of $150,000 which would cover 10 vehicles imported together, each with a value of $10,000 as determined by the U.S. Customs Service, rather than individual bonds for 10 vehicles of $10,000 value, each bond at $15,000. Your specific suggestion is for "the ability to import no more than 15 vehicles under a given continuous bond at 150% total vehicle value."

We are unable to implement your suggestion at present. Under 49 CFR 591.8 (a), the safety compliance bond's coverage is restricted to "only one motor vehicle." Thus, rulemaking is required to amend paragraph 591.8 (a) to permit a bond that covers more than one vehicle. In addition, Appendix A to Part 591 will have to be modified; this sets forth the terms of the bond, presently expressed in single-entry terms. As NHTSA is required to reimburse Customs for its costs in processing safety compliance bonds, that agency must necessarily be consulted to determine the impact of such a change on its operations, with a possible change in the bond processing fee imposed under Part 594. However, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will consider the feasibility of rulemaking on this subject.

ID: nht93-4.23

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: Margaret W. Mouzon -- Mouzon Information Services

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from John Womack to Margaret W. Mouzon (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(b)(1)), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

Could you please describe and provide and interpretation of any federal regulations regarding dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installations?

For example, if a new or used car dealer sells a used car with an occupant restraint system which has been rendered inoperable, for example, a deployed airbag, does the dealer have to restore the restraint system to its original condition before delivering the vehicle to the purchaser?

What if the dealer is selling the showroom model or demonstration model of an otherwise "new" vehicle, does the occupant restraint system have to be operable?

I would much appreciate a response to these questions.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

ID: nht93-4.24

DATE: June 4, 1993

FROM: James G. O'Neill

TO: D. Fujida -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to James G. O'Neill (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I was directed to your office by Mr. Dick Jasinski of the equipment branch of safety compliance.

I am manufacturing a product that will be attached to a child's car seat. I would like to know if there are any N.H.T.S.A. requirements the product must meet.

The sketch will give you an idea of its function.

Attachment

Sketch omitted.

ID: nht93-4.25

DATE: June 7, 1993

FROM: Ben F. Barrett -- Associate Director, The Legislative Research Department, State of Kansas

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/93 from John Womack to Ben F. Barrett (A41; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

A Kansas school district recently has expressed its desire to use a 15-passenger vehicle, which I believe generally is categorized as a "bus," to transport students to and from school or to and from school-related activities. But, the district does not want to cause these vehicles to meet the additional safety requirements of a "school bus." However, it is my understanding that if such a vehicle is used to transport students, it is under the federal law of a "school bus."

Our state law, among other things, defines a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for transporting more than ten passengers in addition to the driver. The suggestion is that the state law be amended so as to exclude the 15-passenger vehicles from the state's "school bus" definition.

No doubt, proposals of this type previously have been called to your attention. It would be helpful to us to obtain your comments concerning the consequences of such legislation, both with respect to any federal sanctions that might relate to this type of nonconformity and to liability or other issues that might merit attention.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht93-4.26

DATE: June 7, 1993

FROM: K. Aubrey Hottell -- Smith and Robson, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/93 from John Womack to K. Aubrey Hottell (A41; Std. 208) and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is to request a Letter of Interpretation regarding air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle.

As I understand, once an air bag is discharged, an indicator light will illuminate to show that the bag needs replacement.

Please send this to me at the address above.

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance.

ID: nht93-4.27

DATE: June 7, 1993

FROM: Willaim (William) C. Longo -- Chief Executive Officer, Ram Off Road Accessories

TO: Office of the Chief Consel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from John Womack to William C. Longo (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Ram Off Road Accessories is a manufacturer of aftermarket tubular steel bolt on products such as Grille/Brush Guards, Side Bars and Bumpers. Most of our products attach to existing bodywork on the intended application, but with more vehicles being equipped with the Supplementary Restraining Systems (SRS) we are concerned about the possible liabilities involved with marketing our products.

Especially, would a permanent disclaimer affixed to the product as well as disclaimers on all printed material be sufficient? How can we determine what lengths are necessary to limit our liability as well as inform the consumer of the product's intended use.

I have written this letter as brief as is possible, but if more information is necessary or if it needs to be addressed to another department, please let me know.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-4.28

DATE: June 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Shawn Shieh -- Ventures International USA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-13-93 EST from Shawn Shieh to NHTSA (OCC 8640); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108)

TEXT: This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read.

I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps.

In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product.

ID: nht94-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From Fred Carr To John Womack (OCC-9912)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carr:

This responds to your question asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to "motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers." As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment.

S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 appl ies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. "Truck" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of propert y or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211.

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

Sincerely,