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,

ID: nht94-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this rega rd, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle eq uipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake syste ms. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the stan dards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: Rick Rogers

TO: Robert Mellmuth -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/21/94 from John Womack to Rick Rogers (A42; STD 108); and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite

TEXT: I'd like to present an idea to the auto industry that has been an oversight for some time. An idea that can prevent tens of thousands of accidents and save thousands of lives.

The great thing is that it costs next to nothing to implement, and makes the industry shine with innovation. Here it is.

A cars brake lights should go on not only when the break pedal is pressed, but should also go on when the gas pedal is released.

There it is. Simple and effective. We're saving tenths of seconds during critical moments before a rear and accident. We're letting cars space themselves more appropriately during stop and go, bumper to bumper traffic. We're letting the person driv ing behind us know that we no longer have out foot on the gas pedal, but have motioned toward caution to either brake or to start to coast slower. Either way, we're letting the driver behind us drive more intelligently by giving them as much warning as to how our car is operating.

Lets carry the implementation of this idea one step further. Lets get sophisticated. Cars and trucks have clutches, so lets engage our brake device when the clutch is moved to neutral. This idea lends us to make two kinds of brake lights. Fully en gaged and pre-engaged. Fully engaged represents the lighting method currently being used by the auto industry. You hit your brakes and your brake light comes on. Pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lights represent brake lights that would be displayed with a lesser light intensity to prewarn the driver behind your vehicle that your vehicle may soon brake. They would go on when the gas pedal is released for cars and trucks with automatic transmissions, and would go on when a vehicle with a clutch mov es to neutral and/or when the gas pedal is released. These brake lights could be either a seperate bulb of lesser wattage, or can even be incorporated into the regular brake light bulbs as a secondary filament.

Whether pre-engaged (passive engaged) brake lighting becomes a reality on the less sophisticated automobiles or not, a quicker brake signal makes sense. Todays cars are more responsive than ever, but drivers are drivers. We need all the reaction time we can get. This idea will give it.

Sometimes a simple idea can make our life simpler, and safer. Feel free to call or write if you feel this idea merits your interests in vehicle safety. I hope for the sake of drivers abroad that this idea is one the auto industry will embrace.

ID: nht94-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Green

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/14/94 From Donald Green To U.S. Department Of Transportation (OCC-9679)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while t owing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity .

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

2

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,