ID: nht95-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. P. Corrado -- Director, Market Development, GenCorp Aerojet Electronic Systems Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM A. P. CORRADO TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Corrado:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with respect to automatic cut-off devices for air bags. You requested confirmation that the standard "does not preclude the use of inflatable restraint systems that by design inhibit deployment of a passenger air bag in those identifiable cases where the likelihood and severity of passenger injury would be greater with air bag deployment than without." You specifically cited the cas e of out-of-position passengers. As discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash con ditions specified in the standard.

NHTSA addressed the legality of both automatic and manual air bag cutoff devices in the context of a recent rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices under special circumstances. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in October 1994, the agency explained that automatic cutoff devices for passenger side air bags are already permitted by Standard No. 208. However, the devices must be designed to automatically ensure that the air bag is activated under the dynamic crash test conditions spe cified in the standard, i.e., in a 30 mph barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat. See discussion at 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994. I have enclosed a copy of that notice for your information, as well as a co py of the recently issued final rule.

I would like to note a safety issue that is relevant to the design of automatic cutoff devices for air bags. Standard No. 208's requirements for air bags are intended to provide safety benefits for a much broader set of real world conditions than the na rrow conditions specified in the standard's dynamic crash test, i.e., at a greater number of speeds and frontal impact angles, for many different sizes of occupants, etc. The agency recognizes the safety benefits that can be provided by well-designed au tomatic cutoff devices that can sense rear facing infant restraints and other possible special situations where deactivation is appropriate. At the same time, NHTSA believes it is important for manufacturers developing automatic cutoff devices to ensure that the devices do not deactivate air bags under circumstances where the air bags would provide important safety benefits.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Olsen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Olsen:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 pro vides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Genera lly speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability.

I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. I n that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers.

This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manuf acturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081.

ID: nht95-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: M. Judson Brown, PE -- Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, CNG Bus Project Manager

TO: Mr. John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transport, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN RENOCK (REDBOOK 2; PART 304)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

The Central New York Regional Transport Authority (CNYRTA) of Syracuse, New York has eight natural gas buses which have Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) cylinders which are used for fueling the buses. It was our original understanding that the tanks, which are certified by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with an exemption (Exemption Number 8814) are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. I am enclosing a copy of the USDOT Exemption which the tank manufacturer, Stuctural Composite Industries, received from USDOT Hazardous Materials Branch. Please note page 5, item g of the Exemption. I am also enclosing a copy of the regulations, DOT FRP-1, governing manufacturing and test requirements for the tanks.

I recently received a copy of a letter which was sent to Spencer Testing Services by yourself as Acting Chief Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation (copy of letter enclosed). The letter states that the Research and Special Programs Administr ation, (RSPA) is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers including the CNG containers used to transport hazardous materials. However, RSPA does not have statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicl e. In other words, as I read the letter, RSPA is not authorized to require reinspection and hydraulic retesting of CNG containers which are used to fuel a motor bus.

Would you please confirm by letter to Central New York Regional Transport Authority that fueling containers on their 8 buses are not required to be re-inspected and hydraulically re-tested every three years under USDOT requirements. Please address the l etter to:

Mr. John Renock Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205-0820

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd.

TO: Minister, DOT.

TITLE: Re our product: Brake Condition Warning Sensor

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/10/95 LETTER FROM RICARDO MARTINEZ TO SHIH - CHIANG CHEN (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Dear Sirs,

I invented the "Brake Condition Warning Sensor" and applied for the patent right of 17 countries, including my country and your country. (For instance, the patent registration number in your country is 5059947)

The special properties of this patented product distinguishes itself from the similar products available on the market. It helps the third brake lamp to generate flashes of various levels due to the different speeds of stepping the brake when drivers me et various situations happened during the automobile travel in order to warn the drivers behind. Thus the drivers behind could make proper preparations and responses to prevent accident.

It has to been emphasized that the period of flashing from the third brake lamp by using this product is very short. Besides, it will act only when the driver must step down the brake. When the automobile completely stops, the light will automatically stops flashing, but still remain lit. This feature provides drivers with great convenience and safety. Therefore, this product is very popular with automobile industries since it became available on the market.

Although many people from your country take great interests in this product, they question about the "Flashing from the Third brake lamp". They think this product is not applicable and is arguable to the relevant communication codes in your countries.

The questions presented by people in your country are not unreasonable when they are first heard. However, after strict analysis, it is a total misunderstanding to the application range of flashing action. This product only generates the flashing actio n only on the third brake lamp, not relevant to the two tail lamps.

In other words, only the third brake lamp will flash by this device when drivers step the brake to respond to the road situation. The two tail lamps remain their normal function, lit but not flashing. It will not cause confusion to drivers' judgment. Instead, it warn the drivers behind to take proper approaches.

With regard to this point, the automobile industries in my country also questioned about the legal applicability at the very beginning. I requested the ministry of Communications for a proper explanation. The result showed that it is not in contraventi on of the regulation that "The Brake Lamp is Forbidden to Flash After Automobile Stops Completely." (See the attachment for a copy of letter from the Ministry of Communications.) The argument is ceased accordingly. Therefore, this product is legally appr oved and has gained a lot of good reputations.

Because I do not completely understand the relevant communication codes in your country, I will need your assistance to have a better understanding. Your reply will be highly appreciated.

Best regards!

P.S. An instruction is enclosed.

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

LETTER

[Illegible Words] Received By: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG [Illegible Word] To: Mr. CHEN, SHIH-CHIANG

Insurance Date: November 10, 1993 File No.: Lu-Tai-(1983)-Chien-Tzu No. 10182

1. Thanks for your letter dated November 14, 1993.

2. Regarding you pointed out our improper regulation: "The third brake light cannot shine when the car stays still." We have checked the regulation of inspecting the third brake light. The regulation requests new small cars should have the third light device and other items necessary for inspecting when the current highway registration & inspection offices proceed all light inspection.

3. Please bring your attention.

Department of Land Administration Ministry of Communication

(Affixed with the official seal)

(Brochure and patent information omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 15, 1995

FROM: Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health And Transporation Services, (Parents In Community Action Inc.)

TO: Walt Myers -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN G. NELSON (RED BOOK 2; A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

We spoke briefly about standards for School Buses and I wanted to get your written response.

You stated that the school bus color was only a recommendation and not a federal requirement. That color requirements for school buses was up to individual states.

I'd appreciate your written response.

Thank-you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 16, 1995

FROM: Michael J. Wirsch -- Manager, Electric Transportation Dept., Ride Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Disposition Of Vehicles Following Demonstration, Training And Studies Period; Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD); Reference: (1) NHTSA File 9207-1, (2) Letter dated 11/18/92, Robert F. Hellmuth of NHTSA to Niels Skjodt of CityCo m A/S (copy attached).

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MICHAEL J. WIRSCH (PART 591)

TEXT: As indicated in the referenced November 18, 1992 letter from NHTSA, we obtained permission to demonstrate, test and evaluate for the allowed three year period, sixteen CityCom vehicles produced in Denmark. The subject vehicles are limited performance th ree wheel electric vehicles (EVs) known as the "City-El."

At the time they were imported, there was a possibility of producing the same or similar vehicle in the United States. The test and evaluation was directed toward determining whether this was possible, on a cost competitive and cost effective basis. Th e possibility still exists for development of a design based on similar materials and production techniques, but of an entirely different configuration.

The evaluation period is coming to an end in November, 1995. The approval by NHTSA for evaluation of the vehicles stated that at the end of the evaluation period the vehicles would be modified to comply with the applicable standards or returned to Denma rk. A third alternative is now preferrable to both SMUD and Sacramento's McClellan Air Force Base (McClellan).

The most attractive option for disposing of the sixteen vehicles is transferring ownership directly to McClellan for their use on base, with your permission to do so. The vehicles would be controlled to restrict their use to base property, and therefore not on public streets. Since McClellan can place these vehicles into service that does not need public road access, they would not be registered for use on public streets, not require compliance and need only be controlled as other similar off road veh icles McClellan now has on base.

For the last three years, SMUD has been actively involved with joint Electric Transportation Program activities with McClellan. Nearly identical to the City-El vehicles imported in 1992 are another group of twenty-five vehicles McClellan has been testin g and demonstrating since late 1993, with which they have gained the necessary maintenance and operation experience.

McClellan has indicated an interest in taking over the subject vehicles, and we therefore are pursuing this issue with your agency. Thus, we hereby request authorization to retain the sixteen City-El vehicles in the United States, for the express purpos e of transferring ownership and operation to McClellan Air Force Base. Any action we must take to gain your approval may be communicated directly to me at the following address:

Michael J. Wirsch, Manager Electric Transportation Department P.O. Box 15830 - MS 30A Sacramento, CA 95852-1830

Please provide me with your opinion regarding this approach at your earliest convenience, so that we can take other actions on alternate methods of disposition should your opinion not be favorable. You may contact me by telephone at (916) 732-6754, or b y FAX at (916) 732-6839.

Thank you in advance for any consideration you can give to this request.

Attachment Letter dated 11/18/92 FROM ROBERT HELLMUTH TO NIELS SKJODT (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 17, 1995

FROM: Colleen Grant

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/14/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO COLLEEN GRANT (A43; RED BOOK 2; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Ms:

An official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether my vehicle is street-legal based on the fact it does not have a shoulder-harness safety restraint system.

The vehicle is: 1974 Chevrolet Blazer with: fiberglass removable roof original lap-belts restraint system (still functional)

Inquiries at local GM dealers about retro-fitting the vehicle have been non-productive. GM does not make a shoulder harness system for this model because there is no place to safely mount it. In the event of a roll-over, we were told the roof could come apart and thereby lose any restraint system mounted to the roof.

My request: Your written opinion as to whether or not this vehicle is street-legal.

ID: nht95-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 7, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Helbig -- Vice President, Spencer Testing Services

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS C. HELBIG TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Helbig:

This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on altern ative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container inte grity (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 a nd be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment.

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous mater ials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor veh icle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 18, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ken Calvert -- Member, United States House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/27/95 LETTER FROM KEN CALVERT TO EDWARD D. HARRILL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Calvert:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Alexander H. Patnode of Lake Elsinore, concerning an engine stand your constituent purchased from Pep Boys. Mr. Patnode asked for assistance after the engine stand caused the engine to fall, i njuring his ankle.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers the engine stand to be "motor vehicle equipment," subject to our regulation. NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehic les and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. section 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part or component, or as an accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added)

Although an engine stand is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle, it would be considered an "accessory" to a motor vehicle. NHTSA has typically used two criteria in determining whether a product is an "accessory." The first criterion is w hether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Expected use is determined by considering product advertising, product labeling, the type of store that sells the equipment, and i nformation about how the product is used. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by, ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, it is deemed an "acc essory."

We have determined the engine stand is an accessory, and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Applying the two criteria to the engine stand, (1) the engine stand is intended to be used in the maintenance of motor vehicle engines, and (2) assuming th e stand was new when sold to Mr. Patnode, it was intended to be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

We have searched our files by computer for reported complaints about engine stands, and for manufacturers' service bulletins and recalls. The search was conducted according to manufacturer (Rally) and equipment type (motor vehicle equipment: jacks, and other). A summary of the search results is enclosed. We found no reported instance of an injury caused by an engine stand, or of a manufacturer's issuing a service bulletin or recall because of an engine stand problem.

We will keep a copy of Mr. Patnode's letter in our files on reported complaints. In the future, the letter may be helpful in establishing a pattern of safety-related concerns caused by the type of engine stand that resulted in Mr. Patnode's injury.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please let me know.

ID: nht95-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 19, 1995

FROM: Patrick M. Raher -- Hogan & Hartson

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation - Seat Positioning Procedure Under FMVSS 208, 214

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PATRICK M. RAHER (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

In the process of reviewing the requirements contained in the seat positioning procedures of FMVSS 208 and 214 for purposes of providing guidance to one of our clients, we noted that, depending on the interpretation of certain provisions, there is a p otential for as many as three different seating positions that could occur in a dynamic test. Such a situation is unacceptable from a certification and compliance standpoint. Accordingly, we are requesting an interpretation from your office.

FMVSS 208 (S8.1.2) and 214 (S 6.3) specify that "adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forward most and rear most positions, and if separately adjustable in the vertical direction, are at the lowest position." We have inte rpreted the foregoing to require that the midway point between a seat's maximum forward and maximum rearward position is the point at which the seat in its lowest configuration must be placed for purposes of testing. A question has arisen, however, with respect to power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. In such a situation the language of both standards could be interpreted to allow positioning of the seat at other than the true mid-point.

In order to provide you with an indication of the basis for this issue arising, we are enclosing three diagrams indicating driver seat ranges of motion for a power seat type assembly. These diagrams include step-by-step instructions on three possible interpretations of seat positions for adjustable seats prior to dynamic crash testing. We believe that since the seat positions described in all three operations vary because the seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to th e mechanism utilized in the power seat operation, there are potentially different interpretations of the standards and, therefore, it is appropriate for your office to issue an interpretation clarifying this matter.

The impact of the three options is relatively clear. For example, when option 1 in the attachment is followed, the midway position of the seat is determined by

* raising the seat to its highest position and moving it forward, which is the farthest forward position;

* lowering the seat and moving it to its furthest rearward position; * finding the midway point of these two positions;

* moving the seat to midway position identified by the foregoing calculation

As you can see from Option 2 in the attachment, it is also possible to read the regulation to allow for the same forward and rearward reference points but to move the seat in its upward position to the mid-point and then lower the seat which, because of its mechanical operations, would actually move the seat back from the true midpoint of the seat travel line. Finally, Option 3 in the attachment could lead to a situation where the lowest seat position is used for identifying the forward and rearward most locations and identifying a midpoint. This, we believe is the most unlikely of all three interpretations because it fully ignores the most forward seating position.

In view of the importance of this interpretation to the issuance of proper legal advice under your regulations, we would very much appreciate a prompt interpretation of this question. We are, of course, fully prepared to meet with you or discuss the situation by telephone, to clarify any questions you may have and expedite issuance of a response to this request. We look forward to hearing from the Agency with respect to their interpretation of this matter.

Best regards.