ID: nht91-3.3

DATE: March 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gregory J. Vonderheide -- Vice President Sales, Markets Unlimited Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Gregory J. Vonderheide to NHTSA (OCC 5835)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, asking for the "application(s) necessary for the Department of Transportation approval of a new product." The product is described only as a "Safety Light."

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment, and which must be met by the manufacturers of any vehicles or equipment to which the standards apply.

Unless your product is intended to replace an existing light found on motor vehicles, it would not appear to be directly covered by Standard No. 108, which establishes Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting. If indeed it is intended as an additional light, under Standard No. 108 supplementary lighting equipment is permissible as original equipment on motor vehicles provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Supplementary lighting equipment is also permissible under the Act for vehicles in use, provided its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not render wholly or partially inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Without knowing more of your device, we can provide you only this general guidance.

The use of equipment on bicycles is under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Md. and we are unable to advise you of their requirements.

The use of supplementary lighting equipment is also regulated by the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "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."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-3.31

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: George D. Powley -- Project Engineer, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS NO. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Interpretation and/or petition for Orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George D. Powley (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like your advice regarding the orientation of electrical contact blades on sealed beam headlamps. We are contemplating the future production of a 2A1 type sealed beam with a contact blade orientation differing from that shown in SAE Standard J571, fig. 6 "type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit 4 x 6 1/2 in. (100 x 165 mm) rectangular unit" (Attachment A), which establishes a blade orientation that we will describe as being rotated 148 degrees 54' in the clockwise direction from the orientation established for a "type 2B sealed beam headlamp 142 x 200 mm" as shown in fig. 1 of SAE Standard J1132 (Attachment B).

We would like to produce both a large rectangular 2B1 and a small rectangular 2A1 using the same blade orientation. Specifically, we would propose to use the 2B1 orientation on the 2A1 unit. We wish to stress that the electrical function of each terminal in all cases would conform to the appropriate specification, and all the dimensional requirements, other than the "31 degrees 06' " orientation for the 2A1, would be adhered to on both products.

We do not feel that this proposed electrical contact orientation will in any way adversely effect the lamps performance or its ability to interchange with existing lamps in motor vehicles presently in the field.

We have observed that Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd., of Japan is apparently presently marketing a 2A1 glass sealed beam unit with a non-standard blade orientation, and it is worthy of note that our proposed orientation differs from theirs only in that our terminal pattern would be rotated 180 degrees from theirs with respect to the top of the lamp.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact the writer at (716) 665-6214 Extension 231.

Attachments

Attachment A

Figure 6 Type 2A Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit 4 x 6 1/2 in (100 x 165 mm) Rectangular Unit (Text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

SAE Recommended Practice 142 x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit -- SAE J1132

Figure 1 Type 2B Sealed Beam Headlamp 142 x 200 mm (5.6 x 7.9 in) Rectangular Unit

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.32

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Eric G. Hoffman to Harry Thompson (OCC 5892)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: nht91-3.33

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Fukuhara -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Sakai -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Watanabe -- ITCA-Det.; ISZA -- Washington, D.C.

TITLE: Subject: Rear Seat Requirements - Side Impact (FMVSS 214)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding the applicability of the rear seat requirements FMVSS 214, "Side door strength" (55 FR 45722) published on October 30, 1990, in the context of Isuzu 2-door Coupe.

The Standard specifies ". . . the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger-cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures."

The point of our questions is whether Isuzu 2-door Coupe qualifies for this exemption.

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. This condition is shown in photographs 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1 attached here.

This condition, however, obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, "The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back." In Isuzu 2-door Coupe, the dummy's upper torso must be tilted away from the seat back while adjusting its head forward as the Agency says in the preamble to this Standard (55 FR 45737, first column).

Therefore, our interpretation is that said Coupe cannot "accommodate" the SID dummy and thus the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it.

We would appreciate receiving your view regarding this interpretation and understanding. Your prompt response would be most helpful.

Attachments

Figure 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (text and graphics omitted);

Photograph 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph 2 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph -- 3 SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.34

DATE: April 30, 1991

FROM: Bill Lewandowski -- Account Manager, Kelsey Products Division, Kelsey Hayes

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: E. Kowalski; M. McGrath

TITLE: Stop Lamp Activation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Lewandoski (A38; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245); Also attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski

TEXT:

Please provide information relative to NHTSA regulations/guidelines on vehicle/trailer stop light activation.

Can activation of the trailer BRAKES and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lights comply with D.O.T., F.V.M.S.S. 108 and/or N.H.T.S.A?

Thanks in advance for information available on this subject.

ATTACHMENT

Literature on the Tekonsha Voyager electronic brake control. (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.35

DATE: May 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Julia D. Darlow -- Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-10-91 from Julia D. Darlow to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5941)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1991, with respect to the acceptability of a proposed course of conduct under 15 U.S.C. 1397.

As your letter states, and as related to Taylor Vinson of this Office, your client imports certain "automotive after-market equipment" that does not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The equipment is warehoused in the U.S. but not sold here, and is subsequently exported to Canada. A customer of your client wishes to purchase the equipment from your client and itself export the equipment to Canada, and is willing to stipulate in the sales contract that it is purchasing the equipment only for export to Canada. The equipment and its containers will be labeled for export, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5). The customer will provide written proof of export to your client. You believe that this arrangement will not be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and ask for a written confirmation.

Section 1397(a)(1)(A) prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, or importation into the United States of any equipment item unless it is in conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and is covered by a certification of compliance. However, section 1397(b)(3) (as redesignated by P.L. 100-562 (1988) states that the prohibitions shall not apply to equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the equipment, and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.

It is clear that your client's importation of nonconforming equipment for subsequent shipment to Canada is an importation "solely for export" within the meaning of section 1397(b)(3), and that therefore the prohibition of section 1397(a)(1)(A) against importation of nonconforming equipment does not apply. The question is whether an otherwise prohibited sale of nonconforming equipment is also permitted under 1397(a)(1)(A) as modified by section 1397(b)(3), or whether the word "solely" is interpreted as barring any action other than transshipment for export.

Although the prohibitions and exception were enacted in 1966, only rarely has the agency been asked for interpretations of them, and no situation such as you posit has ever been brought to our attention. However, in 1975 we advised a tire manufacturer that the importation of nonconforming equipment for delivery to a truck manufacturer for installation on nonconforming vehicles intended for export would be permissible under section 1397(b)(3). Under this interpretation, we concluded that the importation of nonconforming equipment for delivery to a truck manufacturer for installation on a motor vehicle before its eventual

export as part of that vehicle was an importation "solely for export" for the purposes of section 1397(b)(3). By analogy, the importation of nonconforming equipment clearly marked in accordance with section 1397(b)(3) and its subsequent sale by the importer before its eventual export by another person would appear to be an importation "solely for export" within the meaning of that section. Thus, we concur with your interpretation.

We would, of course, be concerned if that purchaser failed to export the nonconforming equipment, and sold it in the United States. In that situation, the purchaser would appear to be in violation of section 1397(a)(1)(A), and subject to civil penalties. Although under section 1397(b)(1), the prohibitions of section 1397(a)(1)(A) do not apply to equipment "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale", it seems clear from your letter that such a "first purchase" would only occur after the equipment had been exported to Canada.

ID: nht91-3.36

DATE: May 1, 1991

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- Chief Design Engineering, Prospects Corporation

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Require Confirmation For The Interpretation Of New FMVSS Standard number 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have received the new FMVSS #118 published on April 16, 1991. Our company is currently developing advanced power window and power sunroof control systems for the automotive industry. Several of our interpretations to the new standard #118 need to be confirmed in writing by your office.

First, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (a) says: "Notwithstanding S4, power window, partition or roof panel systems which, while closing, reverse direction when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more from a solid cylinder of 4 to 200 mm in diameter and open to at least 200 mm, may close: ... "

Our interpretation of "22 pounds or more" is that 22 pounds is set as the MINIMUM level of the resistive force for the control system to reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening. Most motors that are currently used in the vehicle power window systems have a maximum force of around 65 pounds. Assume the motor has to give X pounds of force to move the window upward in a normal closing, if an obstruction occurs, naturally the motor will provide more force in order to continue to move the window upward. The force level can change very rapidly when the obstruction occurs. When the total force reaches the minimum level of (X + 22) pounds, or exceeds the minimum level and reaches anywhere between (X + 22) pounds and the maximum force (i.e., 65 pounds), if the control system has the capability to immediately reverse the window moving direction from closing to opening to at least 200 mm, then this control system complies with FMVSS #118 S5.

Second, the new FMVSS #118 section S5 (b) says: "The 4 to '200 mm dimension cited in S5 (a) is measured from the window or panel's leading edge to the daylight opening."

Our interpretation is that this 4 mm daylight opening can-be seen from inside the passenger compartment. We attached diagram Fig.-l (for window), Fig.-2 and Fig.-3 (for sunroof) to explain our understanding.

Please examine our interpretations and confirm them in writing as soon as possible. Your confirmation will have significant impact on our system development. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Fig.-1 -- Window Diagram (graphics omitted) Fig.-2 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

Fig.-3 -- Sunroof Diagram (graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.37

DATE: May 3, 1991

FROM: Richard E. Wright -- Richard E. Wright Associates

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (A38; Std. 205)

TEXT:

As a glass consultant, I periodically get asked questions concerning the use of safety glazing materials.

A question arose recently concerning the use of tempered glass products in motor homes (self-contained motorized vehicles) and mobile homes (non-motorized travel trailers, etc.).

The area of concern is interior applications (not the windows to the exterior), namely shower doors, tub enclosures, interior partitions, mirrors, etc. When safety glazing products (tempered or laminated glass, plastics) are used in each of these applications, do they have to meet the architectural test requirements (CPSC 16 CFR 1201/ANSI Z97.1) or the automotive test requirements (ANSI Z26.1)?

To my knowledge, you are the governing body for use of safety glazing materials in vehicles and, therefore, have the ability to give me an official and legally binding ruling on my question. If this is not true, please let me know who I should contact.

If you need any further clarification of my question or wish to discuss this topic by phone, please call me. I would appreciate knowing that this letter has been received and approximately how long it will take to get a written response.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

ID: nht91-3.38

DATE: May 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul R. Kirchgraber -- Souvenirs of the Future

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Paul R. Kirchgraber to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5964)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1991, with respect to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, must be met in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover with reflective characteristics that will help to make "the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic." In addition, you "want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard", and ask for the citation to "appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for reflective material of this nature, or for wheel coverings on exterior-mounted tires. The standard on vehicle lighting, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, does prohibit, as original equipment, the installation of a "reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment" that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It is theoretically possible that your material could create glare in the eyes of a following operator so that (s)he would fail to respond to a stop signal, or a turn signal. The samples submitted with your letter are too small for us to judge its reflectivity, and we suggest that you conduct your own tests, approaching a vehicle with the tire cover from the rear, with headlamps on the lower beam. This, to us, is preferable to your redesigning the material to conform to any federal test standard relating to reflectivity.

Although the color of lighting equipment on the rear is generally red, with amber permitted for turn signals, and white required for back up lamps, we do not believe that the use of additional colors would create any confusion. In short, we believe that the wheel cover will be perceived for the wheel cover it is.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.