ID: nht92-1.21

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TO: MARION C. BLAKEY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION: LOW EMISSION MOTOR VEHICLE - DATED DECEMBER 4, 1991; GRANT OF PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THREE FEDERAL MOTOR SAFETY STANDARDS (DOCKET NO. 91-66; NOTICE 2) - DATED JUNE 19, 1992

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DALE E. DAWKINS (A40; PART 555)

TEXT: Chrysler Corporation desires to inform the NHTSA that we will manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV's) that will fall under the temporary exemption that the agency has granted for the TEVan, an electrically powered version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemptions for these CCEV's are to be coterminous with that granted the TEVan vehicle. This consortium is a joint cooperative effort by Chrysler Corporation, Westinghouse Corporation, the State of Maryland, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Power to develop electrically powered low-emission passenger vehicles under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

These CCEV vehicles will be almost identical to the TEVans except for the propulsion system which will utilize an AC electrical motor, whereas the TEVans will be powered by a DC electrical motor. The CCEV with its AC motor will utilize a unique speed reduction direct drive transaxle, whereas the TEVan with its DC motor will utilize a speed reduction 2-speed transaxle. All compliance and product aspects of the vehicle program remain unchanged per our petition to the Agency on December 4, 1991 and later modified via a docket file submission on March 5, 1992. Based on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety.

We seek no broader temporary exemptions from FMVSS for the development of low emission vehicles than those already granted for the TEVan. The combined volumes of the CCEV and TEVan vehicles will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted by the NHTSA.

The above information allows the NHTSA to clearly understand the content of our electric vehicle development programs and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. Len Blazic of my staff at (313) 956-5365.

ID: nht92-1.22

DATE: December 16, 1992

FROM: Bryan D. Patton -- International Automobile Ent. Inc. D.B.A. ERA Replica Automobile

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-12-93 from John Womack to Bryan D. Patton (A41/ Std. 106)

TEXT: I am writing you in regards to a conversation I had with Zack Fraser, an Engineer in the safety compliance division of NHTSA (Phone 202-366-2830).

I asked Mr. Fraser which US DOT regulations had to be met for tubing used for hydraulic brake lines in an automotive application. Mr. Fraser responded that there were no codes of regulations dealing specifically with these lines in this application.

He did say that in the absence of federal regulations that the SAE standard would generally be used to determine suitability of a material to be used in such an application.

If possible, I would like a statement of fact from NHTSA recognizing that:

1) International Automobile Enterprises Inc. has contacted you in this matter.

2) There are no specific federal codes or regulations regarding the use of tubing for use as automotive hydraulic brake lines.

3) The SAE standard would be used to determine such suitability in the absence of a specific federal code or regulation.

Our purpose for requesting this documentation is to be able to substantiate that International Automobile Enterprises Inc. has made an effort in good faith to research all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, or any SAE specifications used in place of federal specifications.

Not being an attorney, I suspect the above statements may have to be reworded or altered, but these statements are true to the best of my knowledge based on my conversations with Mr. Fraser.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht92-1.23

DATE: 12/14/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT F. GAYER -- EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, SALT RIVER PROJECT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-5-92 FROM ROBERT F. GAYER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7855)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain trailers, manufactured in 1989, were required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. (49 CFR @ 571.121). You explained that you disagree with statements by the trailers' manufacturer that "these trailers do not need to comply with '121,' because they are 'Heavy Haul Trailers.'" You further stated that the trailers may not comply with certain provisions in Standard No. 121, including the reservoir requirements in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5.

I note that we previously responded to a similar letter from Salt River Project concerning certain trailers manufactured in 1987. Our letter (copy enclosed) was sent to Mr. Derral T. Crance on April 3, 1989. We explained that heavy hauler trailers are not excepted from Standard No. 121 unless they have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds. Since you indicated that the trailers of current concern have a GVWR of 68,000 pounds, they would not be excepted from the standard as heavy hauler trailers. Moreover, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 does, however, include a number of special provisions for heavy hauler trailers, including exceptions from certain requirements. Of particular note, S5.6 sets forth a number of specific parking brake requirements but permits heavy hauler trailers to meet the requirements of either that section, or, at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of 49 CFR @ 393.43. Part 393 requires commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with various types of equipment, including brakes. Specifically, section 393.43 addresses brake requirements in breakaway and emergency braking situations.

Heavy hauler trailers manufactured in 1989 were generally subject to sections S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.5 of Standard No. 121, the provisions about which you specifically asked. Under S5.2.1.1, a reservoir was required to be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system. Under S5.2.1.5, each service reservoir was required to be protected against loss of air pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices.

Notwithstanding the general applicability of S5.2.1.1, certain heavy hauler trailers which complied with the requirements of 49 CFR 393.43 instead of the specific parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6 would not have had to comply with S5.2.1.1. This is so because the vehicle is not required to have parking brakes. However, a braking system is required which applies automatically and promptly upon breakaway from a towing vehicle. Such a vehicle would also be required to carry sufficient chocking blocks to prevent movement when parked, as required by @ 393.41.

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

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: nht92-1.24

DATE: 12/14/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MICHAEL J. MOTZKIN -- PIONEER PLUMBING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-14-92 FROM MICHAEL J. MOTZKIN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7871)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1992 regarding Federal requirements pertaining to brake specifications. In particular you asked whether there are any regulations requiring automotive brake drums and rotors not to be milled beyond manufacturer specifications, and whether manufacturers are required to stamp their specifications on brake drums and rotors. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards which specify performance requirements for new motor vehicle brake systems and certain new brake equipment. The standards do not require manufacturers to stamp specifications on drums or rotors, although it is common practice for manufacturers to do so.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. The milling or turning of brake drums and rotors is typically performed during the course of repairing a used vehicle with worn brakes. We do not believe that the "render inoperative" provision would ordinarily be relevant to such a situation.

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

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

ID: nht92-1.25

DATE: 12/11/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GUY MOZZICATO -- MERIDIAN, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-18-81 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD

TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, @@ 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

ID: nht92-1.26

DATE: 12/11/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HERR O. SCHMIDT -- HELLA KG HUECK & CO

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM O. SCHMIDT TO RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE (OCC 8049)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 20, 1992, to Richard L. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Please address your future requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel.

You have asked for confirmation that the requirement that a center highmounted stop lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools" does not exclude sealed lamps "where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided."

We are pleased to provide the confirmation you request. Although the agency has used the term "the bulb", the term is not meant to exclude more than one bulb, or a light source other than a bulb, for the center lamp. Sealed units (entire lamps) are permissible as long as such a lamp is replaceable without the use of special tools.

ID: nht92-1.27

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID KENNEDY -- W. Y. MOBERLY, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-11-92 FROM DAVID KENNEDY TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8035); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal regulations pertaining to the importation of automotive rims for motorcycle use.

Your Canadian client ships to the United States a motorcycle conversion kit consisting of a prefabricated rear end assembly complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, and passenger car tires mounted on passenger car rims. While the tires bear a DOT certification symbol, the rims do not. You understand that motorcycle rims must bear a DOT certification symbol, and that passenger car rims are not required to be certified. You have asked whether, under these circumstances, the passenger car rims in the kit must bear a DOT certification.

Some years ago, Suzuki Motor Co. asked the agency whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, allow a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims. On December 30, 1982, we replied that paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 did permit a motorcycle to be equipped with tires meeting the requirements of Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard. Although passenger car tires must be fitted to rims suitable for their use, which will ordinarily be passenger car rims, Standard No. 120 nonetheless requires that rims intended for use on motorcycles be marked in accordance with paragraph S5.2. These markings include the DOT certification symbol. As you have surmised, the standard that covers passenger car tire rims, Standard No. 110, contains no marking requirements. Therefore, since your client wishes to export new tire/rim combinations for use on motorcycle conversions, the tires must be certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, and the rims certified as conforming to Standard No. 120. I enclose a copy of our letter to Suzuki.

ID: nht92-1.28

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 (11-16-91) FROM DAVID M. HART TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8021); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht92-1.29

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP.

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO STAN KAPLAN (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We at the Shimazaki Corporation are most interested in getting a review and knowing if a automotive product we are wanting to import into the U.S. for sales meets the required federal standards set by the traffic safety administration.

The product is called Red Alert. It is a safety device that automatically alerts the driver behind you that you are about to make a sudden stop before your foot hits the brake pedal.

Red Alert is a sophisticated sensor that is activiated only when there is a sudden release of the accelerator, as in the case during an emergency stop. RedAlert is located on the accelerator rod (not on the part that is by the foot) and does not interfere with driving habits.

You can install red alert in your car without making any changes in its electrical system. Installing Red Alert is quick and simple and only takes 15 minutes to install and requires no special tools.

Please advise if it meets the standard set by your administration and the how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all?

Enclosed please find brochures on the Red Alert system for your study. I previously discussed this on the telephone with Mr. George Shifflett. He advised me to send you a letter to get a definitive statement on this product. Hope to here from you in this regard as soon as possible.

(BROCHURES OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-1.3

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Donald L. Anglin -- Consulting Editor, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill Publishing, Automotive and Technical Writing

TO: William A. Boehly -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Donald L. Anglin (A41; Redbook (4); Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT: Your assistance in the past has certainly been appreciated and informative. So may we ask for your insight into another issue affecting highway safety.

Does the removal of drum-brake self-adjusters from a vehicle constitute a violation of the anti-tampering provisions of the Clean Air Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or any other Federal law, regulation, or standard?

As always, thank you very much for your continuing interest and assistance.