ID: nht92-6.10

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card, Jr. -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/30/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bob Clement (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I have recently been contacted by my constituents throughout the State of Tennessee who are concerned about the impact of a Federal law regarding the transportation of school children.

According to my constituents, the Federal law permits school officials to use vans equipped to transport up to 10 passengers; however, they are prevented from transporting school children in vans equipped to transport 11 or more passengers. It is my understanding that the school officials would like to use these vans to transport children participating in after-school athletic events.

I have attached a sample constituent letter for your review. I would greatly appreciate knowing if the regulations provide any relief for the school districts in this situation. If not, I would like to know if the National Transportation Safety Board or the Department of Transportation have considered revising the regulations on this matter.

If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Jay Hansen of my staff at (202)225-4311.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from James C. Campbell, Athletic Director, Maryville High School, Maryville, Tennessee. Text of letter:

Dear Legislator:

Recently throughout our State much concern has mounted in regard to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education. These memos have directed attention to an early 1970's federal law pertaining to use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven (11) or more.

Over the years, many schools throughout the State have made use of 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport athletic teams and other school groups to and from school-related events. These vans are NOT used for "pick-up" and "drops" on public roadways. Now, many systems have either had to park their vans or they are under a deadline to do so. This action already has or will create a tremendous financial burden on schools already strapped with financial hardships due to budget cuts. We fear the ultimate result will be the elimination of certain athletic teams and other school functions simply due to the enormous expense involved in renting buses on a daily basis. Also, another problem is that of finding buses available at the time of day needed.

At Maryville High School we have suspended use of two vans that were used for a variety of student activities. Replacing these resources means hiring school buses which we know will increase costs. Due to this change we are considering eliminating some valuable parts of our student activity programs.

We desperately need your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. To ensure that vans are maintained in a safe condition, they can be required to have the same inspection as that imposed on regular school buses.

We have real problems with, and do not understand the rationale, of a law that states we can legally use a van equipped to transport 10 passengers but we cannot use a van equipped to transport 11, 12, or 15 passengers. We appreciate your concern in this matter and desperately need your support.

ID: nht92-6.11

DATE: June 11, 1992

FROM: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

COPYEE: Phillip M. Ramos, Jr. -- Philatron International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/8/92 from Andrew H. Card, Jr. to Matthew G. Martinez (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of Philatron International to strongly question the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy procedures.

In a letter to Philatron from NHTSA, dated April 10, 1992, NHTSA granted Philatron regulatory relief from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 by deleting the oil resistance test standard for air brake tubing. Clearly, this action by NHTSA demonstrated that Philatron's brake hose products posed no safety threat whatsoever. This outdated regulation is still on the books and continues to be administered by NHTSA today even though current truck and brake technology has eliminated air brake exposure to oil. This is the kind of scenario that the Vice President's Council on Competitiveness is working to eliminate.

Although NHTSA has agreed to initiate rulemaking procedures to change the regulation in the future, in the interim, Philatron is unable to continue to market their superior product and endures severe economic distress -- resulting in the firing of a large percentage of its employees. Before this regulatory nightmare, they sold 45,411 assemblies with no reported failures or complaints from any of its customers. The only objections came from Philatron's larger competitors.

I criticize NHTSA's decision not to allow Philatron to sell its brake hoses while their extremely time-consuming rulemaking process in ongoing. This misapplied regulation is unfair and economically crippling to this small business. Further, the longer this matter is left unresolved, the longer Philatron continues to experience serious economic hardship.

I request that you allow production of this product to continue and put those who were unfairly laid off, back to work. Thank you for your courtesy and any consideration that you could give this matter. I look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).

ID: nht92-7.13

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L. Louis Raring -- Raring & Lipoff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from L. Louis Raring to Jack Rice (OCC 7065)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR S571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency "approves" motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403).

This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval, before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code.

The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht92-7.14

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Peter K. Brown (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I wrote to you in April of 1990, regarding your opinion and interpretation of the law relative to hi and low beam headlight use.

The product in question is called, the quad beam and we have been selling it now since mid 1990, directed at vehicles with 4 headlamp systems.

In as much, as vehicles with 2 headlamp systems represent a good part of the vehicle population, and that most of the 2 headlamp equipped vehicles, use only the low beam filaments when on low beam and only the high beam filament when high beam is selected, has prompted me to write to you again.

Our quad beam will enable the low beam to work in conjunction with the high beam, which will dramatically increase the amount of light output.

My question then is, can our product legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?

I appreciate your help on this. I am including a copy of your previous letter for your reference.

ID: nht92-7.15

DATE: May 6, 1992

FROM: Kevin B. Brown -- Manager, Fleet Services, EG&G Idaho, Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: VEHICLES PURCHASED FOR THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (INEL) THROUGH THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) - KBB-09-92

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kevin B. Brown (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

EG&G Idaho, Inc. is the prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office (DOE-ID) to procure and maintain all government-owned vehicles at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL).

Vehicles are procured for DOE-ID through the General Services Administration (GSA). Occasionally truck chassis are purchased through GSA for subsequent mounting of service bodies to be used for official government business.

Our inquiry is to the 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. We would not be constituted as a merchant, or the first purchaser for resale.

The mounting body would be in accordance to the original equipment manufacturer of the vehicle, or the vehicle recommended by the body manufacturer. Following the service life of the vehicle, it may be excessed to another Federal or State agency, or sold to the public.

All vehicles assigned to the INEL are maintained to the manufacturer's specifications and to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A description of vehicles for subsequent mounting of service bodies are provided below:

New truck chassis or existing used; installing service bodies, dump bodies, van bodies, and related accessories. Trucks range in size from 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) to 48,000 pounds GVW.

Based on the above information, would EG&G Idaho need to be certified to install intermediate or final stage labels per 49 CFR 567? Please send your response to the following address:

Mr. Kevin B. Brown EG&G Idaho, Inc. P. 0. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4103

If you should need additional information, please contact me at (208) 526-2075.

ID: nht92-7.16

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/20/92 from John W. Phillips to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7114)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.17

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from Tm Kozy to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7145)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items, of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

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

ID: nht92-7.18

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Stephen Newmark

TO: Jerry Curry -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Part 555)

TEXT:

I have been in contact with Congressman Geron's office concerning the formation of a Texas based company (Lonestar Classics Inc.) which will manufacture kit or reproduction automobile packages. We have been advised that an exemption is available to companies whose production does not exceed 10,000 units during a four year period in so far as Department of transportation safety standards are concerned. Our initial projections are that we would produce approximately 600 such units per year and are hereby requesting said exemption. It is our intent to use this exemption to obtain certificate of origin forms from the State of Texas which would otherwise require proof of our having met the aforementioned standards. We will in any case, make certain that our advertising clearly indicates that such standards have not been met. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 817-267-6241 or at the address listed below.

ID: nht92-7.19

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: John W. Arnold Jr.

TO: NHTSA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Arnold, Jr. (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On 4-22-92 I had bucket seats installed in my 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup (standard sized - not extended cab) by a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip of San Angelo, Texas. The newly installed seats seemed so totally unsafe that I removed them and reinstalled the original bench seat. Are such dealers required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards? If so I would like to file a complaint -- if not, they should be. Thank you.