ID: nht95-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/27/95 LETTER FROM MAYO D. TUBBS TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter of April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter.

Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be "Aviation Green". We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment.

You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exa ctly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." While clearance lamps also are required to be "as near the top as practicable" (Table II), wh en the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Atta chment C titled "Identification Lights on Top". The drawing "Identification Lights on Bottom" does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II.

Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

ID: nht95-3.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995

FROM: Hai Tee Young

TO: Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/15/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Hai Tee Young (A43; Std. 205)

TEXT: I invented and designed slats for passenger transportations (see my disclosure document to Patent and Trade Mark Commisioner), but my patent lawyer thought this is "almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous . . . safety regulations prev enting this" (see his letter dated August 11, 1995)

But I don't see why this will be objected by law or safety regulation, this is not only no hazardous, on contrary, eliminate hazards. Firstly, if the slats are made of fine and thin materials, those slats will appear as fine lines in driver's and pas sengers' eyes, it does not hinder driver's sight and vision, Secondly, if the edges of slats are also soft, in a case of car collision, the driver or passengers either sit on front or back seats without fastening belt, their heads and hands hit the glass es, these slats will not make cuts on them, on contrary, will slow down the speed of their bodies to finally hit the glasses, thus reduce the degree of injury. We can even design double glasses and install those slats between the double glasses adjustab le by either manually or electric automatic control. There will be no any reason to oppose such a device.

Will Your Honor tell me whether my patent attorney's guess is true that there may exist any law and safety regulation against such kind of device? If there really exist such law and regulation, as my analyses point out above, since my this device make s every good thing without side effects, there shall have no reason to be opposed, but such law and regulation shall be revised.

Please help me with Your Honor's best. This is my beginning inventions, not my ending ones. If I can succeed on those beginning ones, I shall march forward from here toward greater and greatest inventions which will give human being great help. So I bessech you to give me your best help in order to encourage my future real great inventions which can help all mankind greatly.

Looking forward your prompt respond and help,

(Brochure and graphics omitted.)

Enclosure

August 11, 1995

Hai Tee Young 10313 Lower Azusa Road Temple City, CA 91780

Re: SUNSHINE SHELTERS FOR ALL PASSENGERS TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Young:

I am in receipt of your disclosure entitled as above and relating to the use of conventional multiple-slat blinds on windows of automobiles, aircraft, trains, or the like.

Use of blinds or slats on a front window of an automobile or aircraft is almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous. If you check, I am sure you will find that there are safety regulations preventing this.

If you find that this is permitted by law, details of the slats' construction, how they are mounted, and, if adjustable, how adjustment is made should be determined before filing a patent application. As I view your disclosure materials, they pertain to a broad "idea" and not to a specific piece of equipment.

I do not take an interest in an invention as payment for patenting services.

Very truly yours, GEORGE J. NETTER, ESQ

ID: nht95-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1995

FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568)

TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council.

This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength).

Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be del ivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis.

Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617.

ID: nht95-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1995

FROM: Signature Illegible; John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James V. Woodsmall, Esquire -- Warrick & Boyn

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 31, 1995 LETTER FROM JAMES WOODSMALL TO COLEMAN SACHS NOT AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woodsmall:

This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1995 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for affixing a certification label to motor vehicles, as found i n 49 CFR Part 567. Your letter states that you have made this request on behalf of a client who converts completed pickup trucks into larger trucks or sport utility vehicles. In this process of this conversion, your client removes the door-latch post o n which the original manufacturer's certification label is permanently affixed. As your letter states, it is not possible for this label to be removed without being completely destroyed.

Although not stated in your letter, in a prior telephone conversation with Mr. Sachs, you stated that the vehicles converted by your client have yet to be sold to their first retail purchaser. Given this circumstance, your client qualifies as a vehicle alterer. The certification requirements for vehicle alterers are stated in 49 CFR 567.7. That section provides that "[a] person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in @ 567.4 . . ."

As the conversions performed by your client entail the removal of the door latch post, it is clear that he cannot comply with the requirement that the original certification label be left on the vehicle. You have proposed as a solution to this problem t hat in addition to the alterer's label required by 49 CFR 567.7, your client be allowed to affix a copy of the original certification label to the vehicle. The copy would state that it is a replacement label affixed by your client because the original w as destroyed in the conversion process. This solution is acceptable to NHTSA, provided that the replacement label includes the explanatory text that you have proposed. In addition, we recommend that your client preserve the original label so that it ma y be furnished to the vehicle purchaser.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Hugh J. Bode -- Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HUGH J. BODE (REDBOOK 4; STD. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request that NHTSA confirm that the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require a motor vehicle to continue to comply with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard after it is sold to its first retail purchaser. Specifically, we ask that NHTSA confirm that a vehicle in use is not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 (hereinafter "FMVSS 124"), after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

The vehicle at issue is a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation in Japan and distributed by Chrysler Corporation in the United States. The pickup was equipped with a Mikuni Model 32-35-DIDEF-328 carburetor. When it was first sold, the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck was certified by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation as being in compliance with all then applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 124.

As we understand it, former @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conform ity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehic le. Safety Act former @ 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. @ 301 22(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

We ask that you confirm the accuracy of the foregoing general statement of the applicability of the FMVSS under the Safety Act. In addition, we ask that you address the following specific questions concerning the application of FMVSS 124 to the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup:

1. We ask NHTSA to confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed insi de the carburetor so that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

We thank you in advance for your assistance in confirming these points.

ID: nht95-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have i mpact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church gro ups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht95-3.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: Karen Coffey -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREN COFFEY (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

At the suggestion of Mr. Ed Glancy in your office. I am writing to request guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on a particular situation which has arisen in Texas. According to Mr. Glancy, since this type of ques tion has not been addressed by NHTSA, a written request for an opinion is necessary.

Specifically, a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run dow n, rendering the vehicle inoperable.

The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor on the automatic seat belt in lieu of repairing the motor so that the vehicle's battery will not run down. The repair of the seat belt motor is estimated to cost approximately $ 500 and the repair is not covered by the manufacturer's warranty, as it is a 1990 model vehicle with over 64,000 miles on the odometer. The seat belt may still be connected manually if and when the automatic seat belt motor is disconnected.

As you are aware, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is my understanding that if an air bag is deployed on a motor vehicle, NHTSA does not require the motor vehicle repairman to replace the air bag because of the above "render inoperative" provision.

In this situation, the automatic seat belt is not functioning as it was originally manufactured nor in accordance with the safety standards; thus, to disconnect the motor cannot, arguably, render inoperative what is already malfunctioning.

If the dealership disconnects the motor on the automatic seat belt, according to NHTSA, will the dealership be in violation of the "render inoperative" provision, cited above, or of any other federal standard or regulation?

As you can well understand, this situation is one in which I would appreciate your opinion as soon as possible as the consumer is anxious and in need of his/her motor vehicle.

If you need additional information or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 512-476-2686.

ID: nht95-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 22, 1995

FROM: SABURO INUI -- VICE PRESIDENT, TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS 114 Theft Prevention, Final Rule Vehicle Rollaway Test Procedure [Docket No. 1-21; Notice 13]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/13/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SABURO INUI (A43; STD. 114)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack;

Toyota would like to request an official interpretation concerning the automatic transmission park position test procedure outlined in the in the FMVSS 114 final rule, as given in the June 7, 1995 Federal Register.

Subsequent to publishing the final rule, NHTSA issued an interpretation to General Motors describing the test procedure as a "static" test, i.e. dynamic body motions were not to be included in the overall measurement of vehicle motion. It is also our un derstanding that the measurement is to be taken beginning at the moment before the service brake is released. Sections S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both describe the test procedure as follows; (step numbers are added for clarity)

NHTSA procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 5. Apply the service brake Step 6. Release the parking brake Step 7. Release the service brake Step 8. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm.

As written, step 2 of this procedure requires application of the service brake and step 5 requires the same. But there is no action to release the service brake. We believe the intention of the procedure either requires a release of the service brake b etween steps 2 and 5, or step 5 should be eliminated (meaning the service brake is only released to begin the measurement).

Therefore, we are proposing the following revised procedure;

Toyota's Proposed Procedure

Step 1. Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade Step 2. Stop the vehicle with the service brake Step 3. Apply the parking brake (if present) Step 4. Release the service brake Step 5. Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position Step 6. Apply the service brake Step 7. Release the parking brake Step 8. Release the service brake Step 9. Verify that the vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm

Obviously, if the vehicle is not equipped with a parking brake, Steps 4, 6, and 7 of Toyota's procedure (or Steps 5 and 6 of NHTSA's procedure) would be eliminated.

Therefore, we request an interpretation of whether Toyota's proposed procedure fulfills the intention of NHTSA's test requirement.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Tinto of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

ID: nht95-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1995

FROM: Mark Heminway -- Director of Fleet Operations, The Hertz Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/29/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Mark Heminway (A44; Part 580)

TEXT: On August 17, 1995 we met with Mr. Richard Morse of the Odometer Fraud Staff to outline a laser printing process we have developed for printing signatures on odometer disclosure statements.

To summarize the meeting, we described to Mr. Morse a process Hertz developed where it scans both the written and printed signature. Then, applying the signature via a laser printer, the documents are printed and forwarded to the states. Mr. Morse insp ected the sample documents and was satisfied they met the standards for verification of signature as well as the spirit and intent of CFR 49 Section 580, particularly as outlined in Appendix A regarding secure printing processes. Additionally, each PC i s secured with password protection so only the true owner of the signature may issue that signature.

We seek from you a positive interpretation that the laser printing of the actual signature and printed name meets the requirements of CFR 49 section 580. A written response from you would clarify for both the states and ourselves your position and save significant time and expense.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Samples omitted.

ID: nht95-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/8/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN COUCH TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 11122)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Couch:

This responds to your FAX of August 8, 1995, asking for our comments on a "preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp." The front marker lamp will meet all photometry requirements of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and, in your opinion, will be placed as far forward as practicable on the vehicle. The supplementary lamp will not meet the 45 degree rearward photometry requirement.

We have only a couple of comments. The first is that initially the determination of practicability of the location of the front side marker lamps is that of the vehicle manufacturer who certifies compliance with Standard No. 108, and NHTSA will not ques tion that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. In this instance, we see no reason to question your opinion.

Our second comment is that a supplementary side marker lamp need not meet any of the requirements for side marker lamps; it must not, however, as provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment install ed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. Given the small size and candela output of side marker lamps, we do not believe that your supplementary side marker lamp would have this effect.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).