ID: nht92-8.13

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Arthur J. Kuminski to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6952)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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.

ID: nht92-8.14

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Gerald A. Guertin

TO: Samuel Skinner -- Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Gerald A. Guertin (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to inquire as to the likely hood of a response to the attached letter which I wrote eight months ago. I am a school teacher and coach, and continue to wonder why vans are prohibited in Florida for the transport of school children. I am told that it has someting to do with safety.

The kindness of a reply from you would be appreciated.

Attachment

To: National Highway Traffic & Safety Assoc.

400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

July 26, 1991

Dear Folks:

I am a school teacher in FLorida. The purpose of this letter is request that you verify or modify what I believe to be the reasons we cannot use 9- to 15-passenger vans in the transport of school children.

Background:

a. Presently, 7-person rifle teams, 8-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, etc. are prohibited from van transport (as are all Florida school children), forcing them to be transported in gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school busses at a gas-consumption rate of 4 miles per gallon. These clubs have to raise their own gas money through fund raising. Naturally, we'd get more trips for the buck if we were travelling in more economical vans.

b. Lore has it that seven years ago a van tipped over in southern Florida, killing a cheerleader. Prior to that, we travelled in vnas. Apparently, van roof standards were not what they should be. Your office then came forward with the need for "acceptability of crash-worthy tests" for vans, but the cost of developing and performing such tests were placed on the MANUFACTURER. (Seems strange to me).

GMC, Ford, Chrysler, as van manufacturers, decIded that they were already selling enough vans to the private consumer sector, and didn't need the school van business - at least not enough to fund heretofore unneeded tests.

c. What is holding up progress, the, is not a determination that school vans are unsafe, but rather that there are no standards to say that they ARE safe.

Question:

Does that pretty well describe the status quo? I want to push for the return of school vans, but want to be sure of the background before I begin. Please write me an explanation of events to date so I may more accurately begin my quest. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Guertin 6800 Kitty Hawk Dr. Pensacola, FL 32506

ID: nht92-8.15

DATE: March 29, 1992

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. H. Munson -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

TEXT: I enclose an order of the Acting Administrator that grants much of Ford's petition for temporary exemption of its Ecostar van from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The order, however, denies the petition with respect to Standard No. 106 and S7.3 of Standard No. 208.

Even though Ford does not intend to sell the Ecostars but only to lease them, 49 CFR Part 567 nevertheless requires that every motor vehicle bear its manufacturer's certification of compliance. Therefore, in accordance with 49 CFR 555.9(a), we ask that Ford provide the agency with a sample of the vehicles. The windshield label required by section 555.9(b) may be removed when the lessee takes possession of the vehicle.

ID: nht92-8.16

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/24/92 from Larry J. French to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6921)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR S571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of

the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during this vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.17

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael J. Sens (A39; Std. 206; Part 571; Part 567)

TEXT:

By way of this letter, I am seeking an interpretation of FMVSS 206, 214, and 216 as they would pertain to a 1985 Jeep CJ-7. The Jeep CJ-7 was classified (it is no longer in production) by its manufacturer, American Motors Corporation, as a "sport-utility vehicle". The vehicle came with a soft top and a removable fiberglass top option. The side doors are easily removable.

FMVSS 206, "Door Locks and Door Rentention Components," requires at S4. that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." It goes on to say, "However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard". My first question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7's side doors are easily attached and removed by design for operation in a doorless manner, is it exempt from conformity to FMVSS 206?

FMVSS 214, "Side Door Strength," states at S2. that "this standard applies to passenger cars." The 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is defined by its manufacturer as a "sport-utility vehicle." This classification is not that of a "passenger car." My second question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sport-utility vehicle," does FMVSS 214 apply to it?

FMVSS 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars," states at S3. that "This standard applies to passenger cars." After stating that it does not apply to vehicles that conform to the rollover test requirements of S5.3 of standard 208, it continues, "It also does not apply to convertibles." My third question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sports-utility vehicle" and is a convertible, does FMVSS 216 apply to it?

Please find enclosed two views of the type vehicle under discussion. The 1985 CJ-7 shows the soft-top package with the top down and the side doors removed. Unfortunately, I do not have an illustration of the 1985 CJ-7 with the optional hard snap-on top. However, the 1981 CJ-7 model photograph enclosed is typical of how the 1980's CJ-7 line appeared with the optional top.

Thank you in advance for your time and considerations on this issue. If you require additional information, do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachment

Photos and text pertaining to the 1981 and 1985 CJ-7 vehicles.

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-8.18

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles W. O'Conner -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

COPYEE: Larry Henneberger; Bill Lewandoski; California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/26/91 from Charles W. O'Connor to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6863)

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991, and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this Office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ("Control"). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to "rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning."

We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above.

We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle.

It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purposes other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397(a)(2)(A). This Section states in pertinent part:

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

The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A).

We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort on the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statutes and regulations.

On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht92-8.19

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to George F. Reuss (A39; VSA 102 (3))

TEXT:

Reuss Engineers Has received a patent for a propietary vehicle to pick up and transport autombiles. We have produced a practical prototype and are ready to produce commercial models for sale. We are interested in knowing which specific regulations and standards apply.

The complete vehicle consists of a purchased chassis with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. Between the cab and the rear wheels is inserted a structural frame including moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath an automobiles' tires. The forks are raised, carrying the automobile with them, and retracted into the frame work. The vehicle containing the automobile is driven to any destination and the proceedure reversed.

Enclosed are 2 pages of the patent giving a pictorial representation.

We appreciate any help and guidance. Thank yo for your prompt attention.

Attachment

Copy of patent number 5,067,869, dated 11/26/91. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht92-8.2

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Danis -- Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. (Quebec)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Charles Danis to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6991)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR S571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure.

The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-8.20

DATE: March 24, 1992

FROM: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TO: Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tm Kozy (A39; Std. 208; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have a question regarding the use of adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to a 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?

On the same subject, 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 airbag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed?

We need to know the answers to these questions from a marketing standpoint, and also because I use hand controls myself.

Thank you for any help you can give us regarding this matter.

ID: nht92-8.21

DATE: March 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Kenneth R. Brownstein to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR S571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not

clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, vol. 49, No. 97, 5/17/84: rules and regulations. Pertains to 49 CFR Part 571 (docket No. 80-16; Notice 2): Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. (Text omitted)