ID: nht93-3.19

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Brett J. Higgins

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-93 from Brett J. Higgins to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8493)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993 to former Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to an item of equipment you wish to sell. According to your letter, the item is a

special clamp that is applied to the shoulder strap of a seatbelt as an after-market item. The purpose of this clamp is to allow for slack in the shoulder harness section of a seatbelt thus allowing it to be worn more comfortably.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, you are not required to certify that this device complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the device for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this device for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As stated above, this device is not subject to any safety standard, so you do not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this device, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative,"

in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be "rendered inoperative" by the use of your belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I note that NHTSA has received a number of inquiries about devices similar to the one you plan to sell. As we have advised others, this agency is concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use such products to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. We encourage you to provide instructions with the product that warn users not to introduce excessive slack and provide detailed guidance for users on what is an excessive amount of slack.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

ID: nht93-3.2

DATE: April 14, 1993

FROM: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Interpretation of S5.1 and S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Larry Kness (A41; Std. 101; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Chance Coach is a manufacturer of transit buses, and we are soliciting a written interpretation of two parts of FMVSS 101.

First, S5.1 divides specific motor vehicle controls into three categories: hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls, and displays. If a specific control is furnished, then is it required to be operated per the category's operation? For example: the turn signal control would be hand-operated, the service brake would be foot-operated and the highbeam control could be either hand- or foot-operated. Or should S5.1 be interpreted to mean: if a control is furnished and it is operated in this manner (hand- or foot-), then the following sections of S5.2 and S5.3 apply?

Currently, the turn signal controls of transit buses are mounted to the floor. This position has been used in the transit bus industry since FTA (then UMTA) issued the BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATION (referred to as the "White Book"). As stated in the White Book, the turn signals are to be foot-operated momentary contact switches. Do foot-operated turn signals meet S5.1 of FMVSS 101?

A second interpretation is required on S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101. In a transit bus, the furnished controls are located on the dash, and they are illuminated by back lighting their identification. A dimmer switch provides illumination of the identifications over a continuous range. Typically, the windshield wiper/washer controls are provided by a vendor, and they are also installed on the dash. The windshield wiper/washer identifications are located on the control knobs, and they are not backlit. At night, the control knob's identifications are barely discernible from the indirect lighting coming from the other identifications and displays, and very discernible by turning the overhead driver's controlled light on. Does this comply with S5.3.3 of FMVSS 101?

Please contact me at (316) 941-1614, if additional information is needed.

Enclosure

Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration BASELINE ADVANCED DESIGN TRANSIT COACH SPECIFICATIONS A Guideline Procurement Document for New 35- and 40-Foot Coach Designs November 1978 (pages II-35 through II-37) (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht93-3.20

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-2-93 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 2, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency.

You refer to Mr. Rice's letter of December 30, 1992, which you interpret as saying that "any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You consider "that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections." You ask "if our idea is appropriate."

We confirm your interpretation with respect to drawing No. 1, which appears essentially the same as covered by Mr. Rice's interpretation. With respect to drawing No. 2, this lamp appears to be composed of a panel of LEDs flanked by two incandescent bulbs. When the LED panel alone is operated, or when it is operated in conjunction with either one or both of the incandescent bulbs the requirements applicable to three lighted sections will apply. However, each bulb is regarded as being a single light source so that if the bulbs are operated individually, only the requirements for single lighted sections apply.

If the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform the same function, the requirements for two lighted sections apply. However, if the bulbs are operated simultaneously to perform different functions, the single lighted section requirements apply and all other requirements such as contrast ratios (e.g., the 1:5 for tail and stop lamps) must be met.

ID: nht93-3.21

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Donald J. Crane -- ARVIN, Calspan Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Donald J. Crane (A41; Std. 207).

TEXT: Recently, a customer of Calspan Corporation inquired whether or not their vehicle was exempt from the test requirements in S4.3.2.2, Acceleration of Standard No. 207; Seating Systems. This test subjects the restraining device to an acceleration of 20 g., in the longitudinal direction opposite to that in which the seat folds. The seat types exempt from this requirement are a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

A summary of the seat types and vehicle type for Calspan's customer are in the following table.

Front Seat (Drv. & Pass.) Rear Seat (Bench Seat)

Seat Back Angle 24 degrees 26 degrees

Reclining Angle * Forward: 39 degrees 30' +/- 3 degrees No

Rearward: 58 degrees +/- 2 degrees

Sliding Distance 220 mm No

Folding Forward No Split Seat Back folded

Vehicle Type 4-Door Sedan

* 24 degrees + 58 degrees = 82 degrees

With this information, can you please provide a written interpretation of S4.3.2.2 of Standard 207. Also, is this a full-flat seat? What would the interpretation be if the vehicle was a 2-door type?

I thank you for your attention and assistance in this inquiry. Please call me at (716)631-6854 if you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.22

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment & Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Shintaro Nakatsuka (A41; Std. 102; Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mazda, like many other manufacturers, is relying more and more upon the use of electronics in the development of future vehicles. In the course of examining some applications of these technologies, we discovered some ambiguity between the requirements of FMVSS 102 and FMVSS 114. There appears to be an unintended inconsistency between the two regulations.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the provisions of FMVSS 102 along with the provisions of FMVSS 114 so as to eliminate this ambiguity. We are requesting that you consider the possible interpretations discussed herein and advise us whether we are correct.

In 1989, NHTSA amended FMVSS 102 in order to permit the use of electronic gear shift sequence displays. The agency replaced the requirement that the gear shift sequence be PERMANENTLY displayed with a requirement that it be displayed only when the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted or when the transmission is not in park (49CFR102 S3.1.4.1).

In 1991, NHTSA amended FMVSS 114 to accommodate electrical transmission shift lock systems. Here the standard was amended to allow override systems to be incorporated in vehicles that permitted the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure. The amendment that was added permits the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure provided that the key is removed and the vehicle cannot be steered (49CFR114 S4.2.2(b)(1)). This permits towing when the vehicle is otherwise disabled.

In the course of examining electrical systems for future vehicle programs, we encountered some ambiguity between the two provisions discussed above. There appears to be what can best be described as unintended inconsistency between the two provisions. The agency clearly contemplated power failures and the need to deal with them when it added the override provisions to FMVSS 114. This standard permits the incorporation of features in a vehicle that allows the transmission to be moved out of park, provided first, that the key is not in the ignition so as to prevent vehicle operation, and second, that the vehicle cannot be steered.

These safeguards assure that moving the transmission out of park does not inadvertently present an unsafe situation.

However, when we turn to the requirements of FMVSS 102, that standard does not explicitly address the situation where the transmission has been moved out of park in the case of a power failure (as contemplated under the provisions of FMVSS 114). It is the safeguards that are incorporated in FMVSS 114 that allow a manufacturer to design and sell a vehicle with an electrical shift lock system.

We presume that reading FMVSS 102 alongside FMVSS 114 allows a similar situation with respect to electronic shift sequence displays. We believe that the provisions of S3.1.4.1(b) of FMVSS 102 would not have to be satisfied in a vehicle equipped with an electronic gear shift sequence display were that vehicle to suffer the same power failure that necessitated the application of the shift lock override provision of FMVSS 114, provided that the same safeguards pertained, minimizing any possible safety risk.

An alternative interpretation of this issue may be equally valid. Under this interpretation, we advance the position that the agency never intended that the provisions of FMVSS 102 would apply in situations where a manufacturer elected to use an electronic transmission shift sequence display and there was a power failure.

It is clear that the 1989 amendments were promulgated only to permit manufacturers to offer electronic displays. In amending the regulation to allow those types of displays, the agency clearly recognized that its requirements could not be satisfied under conditions where there was a power failure. Thus, compliance testing was never intended to be conducted in such a situation.

In fact, only where the agency has a particular safety concern in cases where there is a power failure, such as those conditions addressed by FMVSS 114, does NHTSA explicitly establish requirements that apply in such a situation. The absence of any such requirements in FMVSS 102 is a further indication that the standard is not meant to apply when there is no power.

We would appreciate an early response to this request for interpretation. If NHTSA does not believe that there is a suitable interpretation that permits FMVSS 102 to be read consistently with FMVSS 114, we respectfully request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking and that it receive expedited treatment.

Please feel free to contact me or Mr. M. Ishibashi of this office should you have any questions.

ID: nht93-3.23

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-1-92 from Raymond S. Byers to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8258)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your "Aeromate" van. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR S567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position.

You explain in your letter that in your "Aeromate" vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.24

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification

of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.25

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-93 from Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8517)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, REARVIEW MIRRORS; (49 CFR S571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth

in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR, Part 571, re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Rearview Mirror Systems, Final Rule, dated September 2, 1982.

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.26

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President-Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; VSA Sec. 102 (illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 19 in response to my fax to Mr. Robert Helmuth. I apologize if I misled my intentions of the letter. I am fully aware that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1972 is quite clear and concise. I am also proud of the fact that Excalibur Automobile Corporation has been one of the manufacturers to comply with the Act as a specialty car, low volume manufacturer.

The point of my letter is that as one of the most well known specialty car manufacturers, I am constantly contacted by other low volume manufacturers and builders, as an "expert," who ask questions regarding compliance with both the FMVSS and EPA. My response is always the standard that if a person builds a vehicle to enter into commerce in the U.S., it must comply with the current standards in effect as of the year of manufacture. The most difficult area to offer more advice and direction is the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod for instance. This is a car that would never comply yet there is a demand and someone will build one to sell.

My goal in all of this is to help all of the people in our industry comply with the standards and stay in business. It is just that at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers and I would like to have some additional direction from Mr. Helmuth's office. Many of these builders, of course, will call me or someone like me, because they are afraid to call you for fear of reprisal. I would appreciate any advice you may have for me to pass one.

The "debate" I refer to in my letter is perhaps a misnomer but refers to the development of policy as currently being pursued by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) lobbyists and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) regarding hot rods, muscle cars, and replicars. The debate appears to be more of can a new, more specific policy be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards?

I would reference the policy which was developed by the U.S. EPA in order to allow specialty car builders the ability to utilize previously certified engine systems and not have to go through the expensive and intricate certification procedure. I have enclosed a copy of this policy for your review.

After you have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation that I face with these builders and manufacturers, please let me know your thoughts and any advice that you might offer me. I thank you for your time and effort

and hope that my requests do not place an undo burden on you or your department.

Enclosure (EPA KIT CAR POLICY) omitted.

ID: nht93-3.27

DATE: April 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GMbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Multiple Turn Signal Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: During our investigations in the field of a new rear lamp development, we have the following two questions:

1) Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch on the next page, where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in.

2) Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements.

As we urgently need this information, could you PLEASE SEND IT BY FAX. Our address is:

SWF Auto-Electric GmbH Attn.: Dr. Thomas Luckemeyer/Dept. VER/LB Stuttgarter StraBe 119

W - 7120 Bietigheim-Bissingen

Telephone: 07142 / 73 23 80 Fax: 07142 / 73 28 95

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachments: - Sketch of turn signal lamp - 5 copies of same invoice re: "Letter requesting an information" (Text omitted.)