ID: nht91-2.5

DATE: February 28, 1991

FROM: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TO: Files: Interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3)

TITLE: Re Interpretation Letter to Oshkosh

TEXT:

On February 14, 1991, John Calow, Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corp. (414-255-9151 ext. 2038) telephoned me about the agency's letter of January 16, 1991, with respect to override of the stop signal by the turn signal.

Our letter assumed that turn signals and hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) have a common circuit, and implied that the hazard signals must also override the stop signals when stop signals are optically combined with turn signals. Mr. Calow asked whether the override would be required if the hazard signal were on a separate circuit. I informed him that the override would not be required because the SAE requirement relates only to turn signal lamps.

ID: nht91-2.50

DATE: March 26, 1991

FROM: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: NEF 32; National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 49CFR, Chapter V, Subpart A-571 (the "Act")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Eric G. Hoffman (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This firm represents a private school which operates and/or rents mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers.

The school has become aware of the Act and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with the applicable regulations under the Act. We would appreciate your providing us: (1) guidance as to the continuing effect of this Act; (2) the procedures for obtaining a variance from the regulations of the Act under certain circumstances; (3) the procedures regarding modification of any non-complying vehicles; (4) the federal guidelines for the estimated cost of such modifications; (5) the terms of any grace period for modification of vehicles to bring them into compliance; (6) the applicable administrative entity charged with enforcement of the Act; and (7) any certification process for vehicles having been modified. To the extent any of the above are non-existent, please so advise us.

After your review of this letter, I would appreciate your contacting me at your earliest convenience to further discuss this matter.

Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

ID: nht91-2.51

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl C. Lempke -- President, Delavan Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Earl C. Lempke to Taylor Vinson (OCC 5720)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have asked whether there is "any Federal ruling stating that Trailer Clearance Lights are considered as Safety Equipment and as such are not be be included as part of the overall width of the vehicle." You have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 323.20, the clearance lamp regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the observation that this section does not answer the question.

I am pleased to clarify this situation for you. As the FHWA regulation states, "Clearance lamps shall be mounted so as to indicate the extreme width of the motor vehicle . . . ." This requirement is virtually identical to that in Table II of this agency's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . ." In 1976, NHTSA issued an interpretation that was published in the Federal Register on August 23 of that year stating that "The term 'overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of . . . marker lamps" such as clearance lamps. I enclose a copy for your information.

The FHWA concurs with this interpretation, and has provided us with some additional comments. Federal width limits apply only on the National Network highways (23 CFR 658, Section A). The width of commercial trailers operated on these highways is to be measured across the sidemost load carrying structures, support members, and structural fasteners, as stated in an interpretation published on March 13, 1987, a copy of which I enclose. That proceeding also determined that side marker lamps and any other "non load-carrying safety appurtenance" which extended beyond these limits were excluded from width measurements. This would include clearance lamps, and thus exclude them also from width measurements. In December 1989, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to consider if a new approach should be adopted to determine which devices to exclude from measurements of vehicle length and width. I also enclose a copy of that notice. FHWA advises that its next notice on the subject should be issued soon.

Although under FHWA regulations, the States determine whether safety equipment is to be excluded from the measurement of vehicle width, we believe that the State determination must be identical to the NHTSA position. Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibits a State from enacting or maintaining in effect any regulation covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal requirement. We believe that a State must also interpret an identical regulation in a manner identical to NHTSA's

interpretation.

Attachment

Copy of a portion of the Federal Register dated 8-23-76 regarding "overall width". (Text omitted)

Copy of FHWA interpretation dated 3-13-87, regarding 23 CFR Part 658, truck length and width exclusive devices. (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-2.6

DATE: March 1, 1991

FROM: Stanley L. Dembecki

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- National Highway Safety Administration Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stanley L. Dembecki (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

It was suggested by Roman Brooks that we write and tell you of the advancement we have made to the third safety brake light.

Our "Flashin" safety brake light is at least AS SAFE as those presently on the OEM market since 1986. People who have helped in testing our complete unit on the 1984 and older vehicles and the electronic modules as retrofits on the 1986 and newer vehicles have testified that our "Flashin" third brake light is actually SAFER due to it's momentary flashing just before the full third brake light goes on. This function is repeated every time the brake is applied.

All those who have volunteered to have the brake light installed have testified that they have been approached as to where to purchase this brake light and complimented us on the added safety it gives especially in the bright Arizona sunlight. We are also in contact with one of the large OEM's at this time and they are very interested in our product.

We have conformed to all regulations and standards that had to be met by all the manufacturers of the third brake light. We also have a built-in safety factor in the "Flashin" safety brake light in that should the flashing unit malfunction the full brake light still comes on as do present third brake lights.

We have four prototypes as listed:

Complete single bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Complete two bulb unit for 1984 and older vehicles.

Single electronic modules for all third safety brake lights as retrofits through 1991.

Two bulb electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.

Enclosed is a copy of the abstract submitted recently for patent approval. We are about ready to work with a sub-contractor to manufacture our "Flashin" third safety brake light.

The Arizona Department of Transportation has suggested we contact your office for evaluation if in fact this light needs further evaluation. Since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed. If

more information is needed do not hesitate to contact us.

Please let us hear from you within the next two weeks. Thank you.

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A safety brake light assembly is disclosed which, when the brake system is activated, results in a changing illumination for an initial period. Once the initial period is ended, the illumination of the safety brake system is maintained with unchanging illumination. When the brake system is no longer activated, then the illumination is no longer present. In the preferred embodiment, the safety brake light assembly includes two illumination units in a side-by-side configuration. During the initial period, the illumination units are alternately illuminated.

ID: nht91-2.7

DATE: March 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William A. Batten -- Eaton Corporation, Truck Components Operations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-90 from William A. Batten to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5517)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's "applicable mileage requirement or time domain" for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. 124, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard.

In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections 151-154 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No 124 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new.

I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht91-2.8

DATE: March 4, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Sr. Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Gary Schmiedel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A37; Std. 105; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Oshkosh Chassis Division (OCD) is submitting this letter for a written interpretation of FMVSS 105 with regard to Parking Brake actuation times.

It is OCD's understanding that there is no requirement for Parking Brake actuation times of hydraulic brake systems. This is based upon information attained from reference material 49 CFR 571.105.

OCD would appreciate a written affirmation or denial of our understanding of Parking Brake actuation times.

Thank you for your time.

ID: nht91-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1991

FROM: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TO: Mr. Kratzke -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Safety Belt Labelling

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Binichi Doi (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

This request for ruling is per our telephone communication on March 1, 1991. On March 1, you were kind enough to listen to my rather poorly composed explanation of the situation. Briefly, the problem is as follows:

1. NSK's safety belts which in this subject case are symmetrical in construction for LH and RH seats of vehicles in that both are made of the same material/part composition.

2. If these belts go into regular passenger cars for export to this market, the belt for LH seats would have a switch for restraint system display whereas RH belts have no switch, however, the subject vehicle type is that it sometimes is used for mail delivery. In such case RH belts should have the switch also.

3. Model nos. of LH belts and RH belts are different from each other because of presence/nonpresence of the switch. Therefore, if we are to cover the limited case of "mail delivery" applications separately from regular passenger cars we need to prepare two separate labels for RH belts, one showing a model no. indicating a belt with a switch and another without although these belts are exactly the same in all aspects other than the switch.

4. We would like to receive your ruling whether one type label showing both belt model nos. with and without switch can be attached to all RH seat belts shipped from us to our customer, auto manufacturer, who produces this subject model vehicles.

5. As for the necessary identification of belts for mail delivery vehicle applications the presence of a switch on a belt for RH seats should clearly indicate to car manufacturers that it be installed in mail delivery vehicles and as for the test report for certification, which in our case is prepared by the US Testing Lab, it would indicate that the subject RH seat belt would carry a label with two belt model nos., one for a belt with the switch and the other without the switch.

Hoping that the above explanation is sufficient in explaining the reason for our request for your ruling and looking forward to hearing from your office as soon as possible.

P.S. - If further clarification is needed please contact me at 1-800-521-0605 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

ID: nht91-3.1

DATE: March 27, 1991

FROM: James E. Rooks, Jr. -- Staff Attorney, Association of Trial Lawyers of America

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to James E. Rooks, Jr. (A37; Std. 205; Std. 212; Std. 216; VSA 108(a)(1)(a); VSA 108 (a)(2))

TEXT:

In conjunction with a research project I am completing, I am writing to request a clarification of a NHTSA position.

I am attaching a copy of a "Legal Advisory" column that appeared in Glass magazine for November 1986. There the general counsel of the National Glass Association (NGA) wrote that NHTSA's chief counsel had advised NGA "that federal windshield safety standards are not applicable to replace- ment windshield installations once vehicles have left their new car dealers' lots." He goes on to state that "no kind or amount of work on a damaged windshield renders it inoperable in violation of federal law (because) it is the original damage to the windshield... that renders the windshield inoperable -- not the company that repairs or replaces the already damaged windshield." Presumably the provision of federal law referred to is Section 1397(a)(2)A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

I would appreciate knowing the following:

1. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 212 and 216;

2. Whether NHTSA currently adheres to the above position with regard to the cited "render inoperable" provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended; and

3. Whether these positions have yet been tested in court; if so, what court, and what was the ruling?

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. The deadline for my research is Friday, March 29, 1991. I would appreciate it a great deal if I could receive a response as soon as possible.

Any written response may be sent by facsimile to 202-342-5484.

Attachment

Article from "Legal Advisory" by Jerald Jacobs entitled Urethane Versus Butyl Windshield Replacement; Must Urethane be used for windshield replacement? What are the legal consequences? (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-3.10

DATE: April 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: DS America, Inc.; Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-90 from Anthony Riani and David Mitchell to To Whom it May Concern (OCC 5841)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, "1990" with respect to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on "all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States."

A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which became effective January 31, 1990. I enclose a copy of the 1966 Act for your information; the amendments effectuated by the 1988 Act are found at section 108 (1397), subsections (c) through (j).

In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A "registered importer" is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, 1990". NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees).

The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, 1989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems.

You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-1980s, Mexican Beetles were imported

for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the 1988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the 1988 Act.

Finally, you have asked whether "documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles." Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them.

Attachment

Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment dated September 1985. (Text omitted)

Attachment

U.S. Department of Transportation

NHTSA

FISCAL YEAR 1991 REGISTERED IMPORTERS OF NON-CONFORMING MOTOR VEHICLES 49 CFR PART 592

The following firms have been approved as Registered Importers of non-conforming motor vehicles under the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 592, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991. Additional applications have been received, and if there are further approvals, this list will be updated. The agency does not endorse or recommend any firm listed herein, and does not guarantee or imply that any work or service performed for any individual customer will necessarily be satisfactory.

REGISTERED IMPORTER ADDRESS TELEPHONE

A. Eastern United States

Bonair USA 500 Hollister Rd. 201-288-5333 Teterboro, NJ 07608

Champagne Imports of 200 West 5th St. 215-361-1304 Pennsylvania Lansdale, PA 19446

ICI International 4490 35th Street 407-839-3663 Orlando, FL 32811

J.K. Motors P.O. Box 178 301-366-6332 Kingsville, MD 21087

Liphardt & Associates 15 Trade Zone Dr. 516-588-8288 Ronkonkoma, NY 11779

B. Western United States

Europa International 1570 B-2 Pacheco St. 505-984-8888 Santa Fe, NM 87501

G&K Automotive 1061 N. Grove St. 714-632-8100 Conversion Anaheim, CA 92806

Wallace Environmental 2140 Wirtcrest 713-956-7705 Testing Laboratories Houston, TX 77055

(Revised Jan. 18, 1991)

cc: US Customs Service, Washington, DC Environmental Protection Agency Department of the Army, DALO-TSP

ID: nht91-3.11

DATE: April 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Hurley Haywood -- Vice President, Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-20-91 from H. Hurley Haywood to Chief Consul U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 5855)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S.

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains 100% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).