ID: nht94-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Frank Lautenberg -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/26/94 FROM FRANK LAUTENBERG TO SUSAN SLYE

TEXT: We are responding to your further correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Mark L. Bauman of Marlton, which was addressed to the Federal Highway Administration. On July 28, 1994, the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) wrote you about Dr. Bauman's courtesy light. I believe that letter fairly states NHTSA's views on the process the government generally follows for mandating items of safety equipment. This letter will explain what Dr. Bauman may n ow do if he wishes to sell his invention as an item of optional motor vehicle lighting equipment, without the necessity of Federal involvement.

Dr. Bauman's light would be mounted in the front of a vehicle so that its driver, stopped at an intersection, can advise pedestrians or other drivers to proceed with caution. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and As sociated Equipment governs the installation of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles. Since Standard No. 108 does not require a front courtesy light, the light is considered supplementary lighting equipment, one for which no standards have been estab lished. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require, in this instance, the other lighting equipment on the vehicle's front, specifically park ing lamps, turn signal lamps, and headlamps (paragraph S5.1.3, Standard No. 108). The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify upon the vehicle's completion that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to certification of a vehicle on which the courtesy light has been installed, a manufacturer would be certifying under S5.1.3 that the light does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. NHTSA will not question the certification un less it appears to be clearly erroneous. Thus, any tests that Dr. Bauman may conduct with the courtesy light should address the basic issue of impairment. A dealer in motor vehicles must not negatively affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification. Thus, if a dealership installs the courtesy light, it should ensure that there is no impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3 before offering the vehicle for sale and selling it. Our regulations make a distinction between modifications to new vehicles an d those that have been sold, but similar considerations apply. If a dealership installs the courtesy light on a used car, it must ensure that it does not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment (49 U.S.C. 30122). We have interpreted t his, where possible, to be the equivalent of the "impairment" prohibition applicable to new vehicles. This prohibition applies to manufacturers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses as well.

However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. If Dr. Bauman intends his courtesy light solely for the aftermarket and the device is such that it would ordinarily be installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of its use is determined b y the laws of the States in which it is operated. We are unable to advise Dr. Bauman on whether the laws of the individual States would permit use of his invention, and recommend that he write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle A dministrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope that this responds to Dr. Bauman's concerns.

ID: nht94-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Donald T. Hoy -- Senior Marketing Manager, Clean Air Partners

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DONALD T. HOY (REDBOOK 2; PART 303)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to obtain written confirmation on the issue of converting a school bus to run on a blended fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel. During my conversation this morning with Mr. John Wo mack, I outlined our intention to convert school busses to run on a blended fuel of natural gas and diesel in Seattle, Washington. We fully intend to market this product in other states as well.

Basically, the Clean Air Partners, Inc. (CAP) CARB certified conversion system is designed to bolt on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) diesel engine. The diesel fuel system remains intact and operates as designed during the duty cycle of the eng ine. Our conversion, during the dual fuel cycle, simply reduces the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its' place. Should your on board supply of natural gas be depleated, the system automatically reverts back to 100% diese l with no interruption in driveability.

With this brief description of our conversion system in mind, I would like to ask a few questions:

1. Are there any Federal Regulations preventing the conversation of a school bus from diesel to a "dual fuel" school bus?

2. With regard to vehicle certification, is there any significance as to when the conversion is installed on any school bus?

ID: nht94-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment Dated 5/31/94: Letter From Jerry Miller to Chief Console

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 31, 1994, requesting confirmation that "there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other than school buses."

You are correct that Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices, applies only to school buses. However, while none of the safety standar ds apply to wheelchair securement devices for vehicles other than wheelchairs, the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-3 0121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

You should also be aware that the Department of Transportation has issued a final rule implementing the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices installed i n vehicles required to be accessible by this rule. A copy of the final rule is enclosed with this letter. If you have further questions on these regulations, please contact Mr. Irv Chor of the Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Chor's card is attached to the final rule.

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

Enclosure

ID: nht94-4.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- MD, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD J. KINSEY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 583

TEXT: Ford Motor Company requests your concurrence on the following procedure for defining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components.

40 CFR 583.6(c)(4)(iv) assigns zero domestic content to all passenger motor vehicle equipment which is imported into the territorial boundaries of the United States or Canada from a third country, even if part of its material originated in the United States or Canada. 40 CFR 583.7 allows the supplier to use methodologies that are used for customs purposes to determine the country of origin. Ford expects that for any imported component, both allied and outside, suppliers would report that the domest ic content is zero and the country of origin is the country of manufacture, based on the rules of substantial transformation.

Ford can obtain the same information (zero domestic content, country of manufacture, purchase price) expected to be received from our foreign suppliers from our present purchasing systems. Since the process of soliciting the supplier is costly, Ford plans to assign the domestic content and country of origin of the foreign supplied components without soliciting the data from our foreign suppliers. We are concerned that even if Ford did submit the request to foreign suppliers, that suppliers would ha ve to expend additional resources creating a document which Ford already knows the answer. Even if the foreign supplier does not respond, the domestic content and country of origin will not be any different than if they did respond. Ford believes that requiring these suppliers to respond would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on our foreign suppliers.

Ford will solicit content information from all first-tier outside suppliers of non-minor parts starting for the 1996 model year calculation.

Please contact Ron Peltier at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.

Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion 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, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered 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). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: Clay F. West -- Garvey, Schubert and Barer

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/15/94 (EST) FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO CLAY F. WEST (REDBOOK 2; STD. 104)

TEXT: Last week I called the Research & Special Programs Administration, Rulemaking Department to inquire about the existence of any regulations or standards that might apply to a product which is termed a windshield cleaning device. The product is a clear st rip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.

As I discussed the device with Rich Eiderstein (I have probably misspelled his name), he was reminded of another individual who brought in a similar device and also asked about the existence of any applicable regulations or standards. Mr. Eiderstein inf ormed me that, by writing to you, I could receive a copy of the written analysis prepared by his office with respect to applicable rules and standards.

I appreciate any assistance that you are able to provide.

ID: nht94-4.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: James D. Murphy, Jr.

TO: Recht

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to James D. Murphy, Jr. (A43; Part 571.3(b)); Also attached to 6/11/86 letter from Erika Jones to Terry W. Wager

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am designing a vehicle that I hope to certify as a U.S. street-legal motorcycle.

As you can see in the drawing, it actually has 4 wheels, but since the left and right side wheels are elevated off the ground, no more than 2 wheels touch the ground at any one time. There are some rare circumstances where all 4 wheels could touch th e ground at the same time, for an instant, but these require precise undulations in the surface of the road. I would imagine that NHTSA defines "ground" as a flat surface (otherwise, a headlamp might exceed NHTSA's upper height limit when cresting a bum p, or drop below NHTSA's lower height limit when traversing a pothole, etc.).

Therefore, I hope that this vehicle will still comply with NHTSA's definition of a "motorcycle". I await your reply.

Sincerely,

James D. Murphy Jr.

P.S. You can call me at home at (303) 350-9449; any time. Be sure to ask for James Jr.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE BROOKS (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 208)

TEXT: We are currently converting a Subaru Panel Van from an internal combustion powertrain to one of pure electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype with a central battery pack situated between the road wheels and under the load floor. The vehicle has been designed to meet the needs of a fleet vehicle, for example a small delivery van that has a fixed short work cycle of 40 miles. It is required to be freeway capable, although it is primarily for inner-city and suburban use.

The specifications are: Overall length 1885mm Overall width 1415mm Gross vehicle weight 3500lbs. or less Maximum 2 persons

The vehicle would be classified as light goods vehicle. Would you be able to help me with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessa ry in the future. Do you have any information on approach and departure angles or are they OEM recommended standards?

The vehicle will be modified in the state of California to OEM build standards. If you can help with any of the information it will be very much appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 2, 1994

FROM: John Sheppard -- Sales and Marketing Manager, Reflexite Canada, Inc.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN SHEPPARD (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: As a manufacturer of retro-reflective sheeting that meets the requirements for "DOT-C2" material as specified in N.H.T.S.A.'s final rule, 49 CFR, Part 57, Docket #80-9, we request an official ruling on the following proposal.

Use of the material outlined below, (sample enclosed) on the rear of vehicles currently required to meet the requirements of the aforementioned regulation.

Material: - Reflexite Conspicuity Material,

- Alternating red and silver strips oriented at a 45 degrees angle to the edge of the roll.

- Widths of rolls to be either 6" or 8".

- Rolls will not have "DOT-C2" marking.

The specific question is as follows:

Could the above mentioned material be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" "block pattern" material currently being used? This alternative would have a great deal more retro-reflective surface are a.

Your attention to this request would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: Thomas J. Leffler -- Development Shop Manager, FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/7/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO THOMAS J. LEFFLER (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

After talking with Mr. Ed Glancy on the telephone on November 3, 1994, I am making a formal request for an interpretation and ruling on a seat test requirement.

Findlay Industries has a seat design (see attached sketch) that has a storage box below the seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box. This is where the question arises.

In referencing our code of Federal Regulations Book for Transportation (# 49/parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1990) Part 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating Systems Section S4.3 (pages 416-417) "Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or s eat backs", we are unsure as to the necessity of our design to comply with this section of Standard 207.

Our seat design, as you can see, only pivots the seat cushion out of the way for access while the remainder of the seat system is a rigid assembly. Does our cushion frame require a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat in the do wn position as stated in Section S4.3? If so, is static or dynamic testing required for this self-locking device?

I would ask for your attention and interpretation as soon as possible due to our production timing and the time required due to any changes deemed necessary by your ruling.

Thank you for your assistance.

attachment

(Drawing of 2/3 seat - # 2025351 omitted.)