ID: nht91-6.37

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: None

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-6-91 to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991, to Mr. Vinson, asking whether a vehicle you are developing would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you state that the vehicle's chassis should be considered a truck chassis because it "was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation." Additionally, you state that the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle are more similar to other vehicles which have been classified by their manufacturers as multipurpose passenger vehicles than vehicles that have been classified as passenger cars. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. The version of your letter that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-6.38

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Starr -- Solar Electric Engineering

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Gary Starr to NHTSA

TEXT:

The agency recently received an unsigned petition dated September 9, 1991, in which Solar Electric Engineering asked for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The petition named you as the company's contact.

According to the petition, Solar Electric's product "is a standard vehicle manufactured under NHTSA standards and originally certified by the O.E.M. . . . ." A NHTSA engineer has suggested to the company that "the NHTSA may not require the exemption application." because the vehicle is "altered." This comment relates to the obligations imposed by 49 CFR Sec. 567.7 on a person who alters, in more than minor respects, a previously certified vehicle before its sale to its first owner. Such an alterer is required to affix his own certification label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Solar Electric appears hesitant to certify compliance with all standards, and, given the magnitude of conversion from internal combustion power to electric power, NHTSA would regard it as a "manufacturer" who is eligible to file a temporary exemption petition.

However, before a petition can be processed, it must meet the agency's procedural requirements (in this instance, 49 CFR Sec. 555.5(b) and 555.6(c)). Although Solar Electric's petition attempts to do so, it falls short in several respects. Its most major failure is that does not state with specificity the standards for which exemption is requested, as required by Sec. 555.5(b)(4). Although paragraph 2) i) of your letter states that the vehicle would "perhaps" differ with Standards Nos. 103, 105, 208 "specifically part 572 (Anthropomorphic Test Dummy), . . . and perhaps other standards which are unknown at this time or would not apply to an electric vehicle", this is too indefinite to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 555.5(b)(4). Further, to the extent that your paragraph 2) i) is intended to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 555.6(c)(2)(i), it fails to provide the "detailed description" of how the motor vehicle, if exempted, would differ from one that complies with the standard." We recommend, therefore, that Solar Electric review the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with a view towards amending its petition in accordance with our comments.

In addition, section 555.6(c)(2)(iv) requires a petitioner to provide reasons why an exemption from each standard requested "does not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle." When Solar Electric has determined the standards from which it requests exemption, its supplementary petition should contain arguments addressing this point.

With the thought that it may assist you, I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice that discusses the petition of another vehicle converter, and the way that it presented the information required by our regulations. Although the notice was published in 1975, our requirements have not changed since that time.

We would also appreciate knowing the make, model, and model year of the vehicles intended for conversion. Please also ensure that the amendment to the petition is signed by a company official.

When we have received information sufficient to meet our procedural requirements, we shall be pleased to consider the petition further. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of my staff will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Enclosure

Copy of the Federal Register, volume 40, number 120 (6/20/75) titled Electric Fuel Propulsion Corporation; Petition for Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-6.39

DATE: October 24, 1991

FROM: Sue Ellen Russell -- Brand & Lowell

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth; Robert Krauss; Harry Thompson; Z Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sue Ellen Russell (A39; Std. 207; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This firm represents the Glaval Corporation, a company engaged in the business of van conversions.

Glaval recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench set in Glaval vans. These seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is mounted on the seat, not the floor.

In the course of evaluating potential remedies to ensure their compliance with the requirements of the standard, we became aware of a recent interpretation of FMVSS 210 (S4.2) issued to R.W. Schreyer of the Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (April 9, 1990). A copy is enclosed for your convenience. In this interpretation, the agency stated that ONLY FLOOR-MOUNTED anchorages common to a single seat and governing "adjacent seating positions" would be tested simultaneously for compliance with FMVSS 210. The letter reiterates that

"Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted."

This interpretation raises several questions, because the Glaval bench seat in NHTSA's test was subjected to simultaneous loading of the anchorages for all three seating positions, although none of these anchorages is floor-mounted. Glaval's testing, conducted in accordance with the published test procedures in order to replicate the NHTSA test, also loaded the three seating positions simultaneously.

Glaval's questions are:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a

test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight, plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

We look forward to Your early response to these questions, as they will affect Glaval's on going work on this issue.

Attachment

Letter dated 3/5/90 from R.W. Schreyer, of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation to Harry Thompson, of NHTSA. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-6.4

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Robert A. Nordmeyer -- Nordic Associates

TO: NHTSA Administrator, Rule Making Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Nordmeyer (A38; Std. 201; Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are developing an after market sun visor for a client (illustrations attached).

Would you please advise me if there are any federal sanctions governing the design, maximum viewing area that may be blocked by such a device, minimum force required to secure the visor in the extended or retracted position and minimum amount of padding on edges of the visor.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, I can be reached by phone at (818) 347-1597 or Fax (818) 883-3342.

ATTACHMENT

Six drawings of sun visors. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-6.40

DATE: October 25, 1991

FROM: Russell J. Eisert

TO: Steve Kratze -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Russell J. Eisert (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing this with reference to the new laws that were passed pertaining to the conversion of vans. I am a quadriplegic and have been trying to purchase a new van and have run into all kinds of problems. Because I drive from my wheelchair I do not want a seat put in on the drivers side. Also because I sit in the wheelchair a little bit higher than a normal seat I would like to have the roof cut out over the front to give me a couple of inches more headroom. The other problem is because I need space to maneuver inside the van I would like to have the rear seats and folding bed moved to the rear of the side door. I have been driving my other vans with this arrangement since 1978 without any problems.

The Chevy dealers and the Conversion people all tell me that this can not be done in 1992. American International Conversions said I would have to write to you and obtain a letter of waiver from you to cover these items so they can convert a van for me.

I therefore respectfully request a letter of waiver from you to allow them to modify these three items for me.

Your early response to this matter would be very much appreciated. If it would be possible, could you please fax a copy of the letter to American International Conversions, Fax# 813/586-6627. This would save a few days of mail time.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this very disturbing problem.

ID: nht91-6.41

DATE: October 25, 1991

FROM: J.W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS - 209 S4.1(f)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to J.W. Lawrence (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

Volvo GM Heavy Truck requests interpretation of the subsection 4.1(f) attachment hardware requirements:

"... but shall have 7/16-20 UNF 2A of 1/2-BUNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent hardware."

Does the "equivalent hardware" allow the installation of seat belts in new motor vehicles to be metric sizes and threads? Thank you.

ID: nht91-6.42

DATE: October 28, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry/Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from Satoshi Nishibori to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6427)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the phase-in requirements for automatic crash protection in light trucks under Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Specifically, you described a situation in which Nissan and another manufacturer will enter into a joint program to produce multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). According to your letter, Nissan has undertaken the majority of the design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components to the other company for the purposes of assembly. The other company will assemble the powertrain and the rest of the vehicle in the United States. Some of the MPVS will be badged as the other company's vehicles and some will be badged as Nissan vehicles.

Your letter stated that Nissan and the other company have entered into a contract that states that the other company "is the manufacturer of the vehicle and will inscribe its name on the certification label." Both companies will mutally agree to an addendum of the previous contract that provides that each company will be treated as the manufacturer of the vehicles badged as their vehicles for the purposes of the phase-in of the automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks. You asked for an interpretation of two points. First, you asked if Nissan would be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. NHTSA set forth the agency's position on this subject in the notice proposing to establish the phase-in of the automatic crash protection requirements for passenger cars. The following explanation appears at 50 FR 14596, April 12, 1985:

Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . ." to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles.

Applying these principles to the situation described in your letter, NHTSA concludes that Nissan would be considered a manufacturer of the jointly produced MPVs. Your letter indicates that Nissan will have done more than simply purchase another manufacturer's vehicles. Based on your representations that Nissan has undertaken the majority of design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components for these MPVs, we would view Nissan as a sponsor, and therefore a manufacturer, of these MPVS.

Second, you asked if Nissan can count those jointly produced MPVs that are badged as Nissans as its vehicles for the purposes of the phase-in of the automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks. This question is answered in the attribution rules for the light truck automatic crash protection phase-in, which appear at S4.2.5.6 of Standard No. 208. S4.2.5.6.2 provides that, in situations where a light truck is produced by more than one manufacturer, the manufacturers may agree among themselves which one will be considered the manufacturer of the light trucks in question for the purposes of the phase-in. When such an agreement is reached, it must be set forth in an express written contract and reported to this agency. Absent such an agreement, S4.2.5.6.1 provides that, for light trucks manufactured in the United States, the manufacturer that markets the light trucks will have those vehicles counted in its production.

If there were no contract between Nissan and the other manufacturer, Nissan would be considered the manufacturer of the Nissan badged light trucks for the purposes of the phase-in, pursuant to S4.2.5.6.1 of Standard No. 208. However, since there is a contract, its provisions will be applied to determine to which party the Nissan badged MPVs will be attributed during the phase-in, pursuant to S4.2.5.6.2. Your letter suggests that the contract between Nissan and the other manufacturer currently provides that the other manufacturer is the manufacturer of these vehicles and will identify itself as such on the vehicle's certification label. In that case, the other manufacturer would have the Nissan badged vehicles attributed to it during the phase-in.

Please note that Nissan and the other manufacturer are free to change the current attribution of the Nissan badged MPVs, by executing an addendum to the previous contract. Any such addendum must, of course, be reported to NHTSA pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR S585.5(b)(3).

I hope that this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht91-6.43

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Edward M. Klisz -- Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward M. Klisz (A39; Std. 119; Part 574)

TEXT:

Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr. Marvin Shaw of your office and Mr. Edward Klisz of the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM) on 25 Oct 91, regarding foreign made tires procured in Southwest Asia (SWA) during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield.

As indicated during the telephone conversation TACOM (as the Department of Defense's (DOD) designated tire manager) is trying to ascertain the suitability for Army use of foreign made tires procured while units were in SWA. Some of these tires had DOT markings on them and some did not. Enclosed is a listing of tires currently stored at Fort Stewart, GA. Request your office review this list and determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to your records.

We are also interested in understanding the process better. It is our understanding that foreign manufacturer's must register with your office to obtain a certification number which would signify that the tire will meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). When the tires enter the U.S., the importer, in-essence, becomes the manufacturer and is responsible for the certification of the tires. Further, we understand that the process is a self-certification process and there may be some random testing done. Request you correct any misunderstanding we may have or enlighten us further on how the process works and any pitfalls we should be aware of.

We would appreciate a reply by 15 Nov 91 so that we can act as expeditiously as possible to dispose of any unsafe tires.

ID: nht91-6.44

DATE: October 30, 1991

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet/Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I am writing to you in reference to FMVSS 208 and how it applies to the physically challenged. As a major supplier of equipment to the handicap industry, I offer the following concern:

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 208 and feed back from the OEM automakers that has prompted this letter. That interpretation and feedback tell us that the support brace between the "B" pillars and forward cannot technically be removed. If removed, the OEM automakers will not certify compliance with 208.

Unfortunately, the removal of this brace is imperative to the needs of the physically challenged and their ability to drive. As you can see in the pictures enclosed, if the support brace is left unaltered an individual with a high vertebrae injury would not be able to transfer to the driver's seat. (The original roof line is noted in marker.) Thus, the transportation of the physically challenged would be restricted to those without high vertebrae injuries and/or short people.

Please reconsider this ruling, or advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I am familiar with the special revision concerning handicap seating dated 3-'86, page 33,181. Is it possible that a similar revision could be attached to FMVSS 208, or does that revision already apply to this situation?

Your immediate response to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-6.45

DATE: November, 1991 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-14-91 from Robert W. Smith to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, 1990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. 108 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. 108 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that - a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108.