ID: nht93-7.1

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Nicholas S. Copass -- Sales Manager, Titeflex Industrial Americas

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Nicholas S. Copass (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 3/6/91 from Anthony Lalikos to Vernon G. Bloom, and letter dated 3/18/91 from Arthur H. Neill, Jr. to Anthony J. Lalikos

TEXT:

Enclosed per our phone conversation on September 29th, is the information discussed pertaining to our licensed assembler of, Department of Transportation qualified break hoses, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard MVSS 106.

Titeflex is the manufacturer of he referenced Teflon break line assembly that has been recognized and accepted by the Department of Transportation, Arthur H. Neill, Jr. Chief Crash Avoidance Division, Vehicle Safety Standards.

Reference: "stylized logo" (=T with hose tail). T

Titeflex has a licensed agreement with Russell Performance to provide fabrication of the said Teflon break line assemblies with the required Titeflex components. At time of agreement Russell Performance provided completed assemblies to Titeflex for verification of compliance to the Department of Transportation Standard MVSS 106. Compliance verification has since been completed and documented.

License will use the Titeflex "stylized logo" on all assemblies and on all packaging in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Transportation, MVSS 106.

The essence of the above information is to receive a written response in regards to our licensed fabricator having to register their logo or become registered by the Department of Transportation.

Titeflex understands the nature of being the manufacture of the above product and claims its responsibility.

Copies of Titeflex logo and acceptance are included for your convenience. Again, thank you for your considerable time and cooperation.

ID: nht93-7.10

DATE: October 5, 1993

FROM: Mark Archer -- Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd.

TO: NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Regulations concerning vehicles at idle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Mark Archer (A42; Std. 102)

TEXT:

The VW Golf Ecomatic recently released in Europe automatically cuts its engine during extended periods at idle for the purpose of reducing exhaust emissions and fuel consumption.

We would like to know if there are any regulations which affect a vehicle of this nature being sold in the US.

ID: nht93-7.11

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from Bernhard Peer to John Womack (OCC 8968)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and, other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each

manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any, other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.12

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Joey Ferrari to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8568)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) FEDERAL law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) FEDERAL law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) STATE law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which provides that:

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

In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, MUST a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

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: nht93-7.13

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/20/93 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 8679)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, with respect to a new design for a door lock and latch mechanism that BMW is planning to introduce in the United States. It appears that your proposed door lock and latch mechanism would comply with FMVSS No. 206.

Based on information provided in your letter, the new locking mechanism will be placed on side rear doors, and will consist of a door handle that serves the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, a rear seat passenger would pull the door handle once to disengage the locking mechanism. The passenger would have to pull the door handle a second time to open the side rear door.

Based on additional information received from a demonstration given to David Elias of my office, I understand that the side rear doors, themselves, cannot be individually locked by the rear passengers. The doors can be locked only when the driver or front seat passenger lock all the car doors via the vehicle's electronic locking mechanism. The internal mechanisms are located at the rear part of the driver's and front seat passenger's armrests located on the front doors, which are reached fairly easily by belted rear seat passengers. The door handle on the side rear door, as noted above, is the mechanism by which the locking mechanism is disengaged.

S4.1.3 requires that each door be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Your proposed operating means for engaging the locking mechanism in each door is inside the vehicle, even though the four individual door locking mechanisms are controlled by the two operating means located on the armrest on the side front doors. S4.1.3 requires only that the operating means for the locking mechanisms be located inside the vehicle, and does not require that each door have its own, independent operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. Thus, it would seem that your proposed locking mechanism complies with S4.1.3.

S4.1.3.2 requires that inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged. An issue concerning your system is whether the inside door handle is "inoperative" even though it can operate to disengage the door locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is engaged. We conclude the answer is yes. S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings in a crash due to impact on or movement of inside door handles. Thus, "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the door handle cannot open the door, which meets the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Elias at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.14

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Erika Z. Jones -- Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/93 from Erika Jones to John Womack (OCC-9017)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard No. 213 specifies a minimum thickness for materials of a certain compression-deflection resistance. You ask whether more than one piece of material may be used to meet the thickness requirement.

The answer is yes. S5.2.3.2(b) does not require the material to be of a single piece, and the final rule that incorporated the requirement into Standard No. 213 did not address the issue. 44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979. Accordingly, more than one piece of material may be used.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact us.

ID: nht93-7.15

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Head, Safety Affairs and Operations, NAO Engineering Safety Center, GM

TO: H. M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: USG 3024, Part IV; Re: Part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards - Docket No. 93-39; Notice 2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Milford R. Bennett (A41; Part 555)

TEXT:

The above referenced docket, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 58, Number 177, page 48421 on September 15, 1993, granted the petition of General Motors Corporation (GM) to allow a temporary exemption from several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for a fleet of 50 GM Electric Vehicles (GMEV).

In accordance with Part 555.9(a), and as requested by Mr. John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel of the NHTSA, in his letter dated September 9, 1993, GM is submitting a sample of the certification label that will be affixed to the left front door of each GMEV. This label conforms with the requirements found in Part 567 and Part 555.9(c)(1), including revisions to Part 555.9(c)(1) proposed by the NHTSA (Docket 93-40, Notice 1).

Part 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing the statement required by Part 555.9(c)(1) or (2) be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. After a study of this label requirement, including discussion with Mr. T. Vinson, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, GM has concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective buyers that the vehicle has been exempted from certain FMVSS. GM therefore believes that the requirement of Part 555.9(b) to affix a window label to each GMEV is not applicable because GM does not intend to sell the exempted GMEVs. However, if the agency believes that this interpretation is incorrect, please notify us.

If you have any questions regarding these labels, please contact either Mr. R. F. Humphrey of our Washington, D.C. office at (202) 775-5071 or Mr. G. A. Zuchniewicz in Warren, MI at (313) 947-1726.

Attachment (sample of certification label) omitted.

ID: nht93-7.16

DATE: October 7, 1993

FROM: Donald E. Schmitz -- Engineering Manager, Featherlite Mfg., Inc.

TO: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Donald E. Schmitz (OCC-9204)

TEXT:

This letter addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993 Recommended Practice on Trailer Conspicuity Systems. Featherlite Trailers will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom rail as shown in the attached sketches. The bottom rail is the most practicable tape location on our trailers since it provides a smooth, splice free surface and is not closer that 15 inches from the ground. Therefore it is as close as practicable to 49 inches from the ground.

Featherlite will assume our interpretation is correct and will begin applying this tape as described above and in the attached sketches unless we receive a response from your office within ten days.

ID: nht93-7.17

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Senator Boren; Senator Nickles; Representative Bill Brewster

TITLE: Re: Docket N. 93-69; Notice 1 and Docket No. 92-29; Notice 2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/3/94 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth Weinstein) to Thomas D. Price (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I am hereby requesting immediate definition of specific technical terminology used in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued in FR/Vol. 58, No. 186/Tuesday, September 28, 1993. You indicated on the telephone, this week, you could not give assurance of a timely response to any questions for terminology definition. However in view of the scope and significance of the proposed standards, it seems mandatory, and in the best interest of all affected parties, that all commenters have a common basis of knowledge as to the intended meaning of specific technical terms, upon which they can base their responses required on or before November 29, 1993.

I questioned three professors of mechanical/electrical engineering at the University of Oklahoma as to the meaning of the terminology listed below and was unable to receive a comfortable commonality of definition. This would indicate that the listed terminology may have some specific meaning for the Agency that is not readily discernible by engineers who lack the prior association with the persons or entities which have developed specific understanding regarding definition.

1. On pages 50757 and 50760 of the reference documents, there are proposed amended definitions to S571.105, S4 and S571.121, S4 which delete the definition of "antilock system", and add the definition "antilock braking system". In the latter definition, in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the terminology "rate of angular rotation of wheels" and "rate of wheel angular rotation" are used, but lack definition. Please define this terminology.

2. There is a definite ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the term "performance". In some places it is obviously talking about the vehicle's ability to meet the standards of "stopping distance" and "lateral stability". However, in other places it is, just as obviously, referring to a step by step functional pattern designed to achieve the prior "performance" criteria, the achievement of which becomes a verification that the prescribed functional pattern is effective. Please define the terminology "performance" as it applies to the GOAL of the Agency to be accomplished by the proposed rules.

We urgently and respectfully request that the Agency provide the two definition clarifications specified above by November 8, 1993, which is one month from the date hereof.

ID: nht93-7.18

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TO: Office Of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From John Womack To Frank Williams (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 121

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

I have a patent applied for and am presently marketing a device which sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cat.

The device does not [Illegible Word] into the [Illegible Word] system but [Illegible Word] the [Illegible Word] button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged.

[Illegible Words]

Thank you,