ID: nht91-3.2

DATE: March 28, 1991

FROM: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President, General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Scott Shadle -- Supervisor, Vehicle Certification, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Derating of Trucks

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (A37; Part 567)

TEXT:

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America, Inc. (MFTA), is the importer and distributor of trucks as incomplete vehicles manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC Japan has asked Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. (MMA), the liaison between MFTA and MMC Japan, to make the following request on their behalf.

MMC is considering derating the GVW of the trucks imported for the purpose of marketing strategy.

In this case, the brake system will not be modified and the vehicle should be in compliance with FMVSS 105 requirements. MMC would supply the new VIN plates with the derated GVW and have MFTA replace the old ones with the new ones.

We expect this kind of modification is such an implementation that has to meet with official approval. At this time, we are asking you for your approval of this modification.

If there are any additional questions you have regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609)467-4664.

Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.20

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard F. Land -- Bureau of Manpower and Facilities, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-12-91 from Richard F. Land to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5745)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks.

The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle.

If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Attachment

NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 titled, WHERE TO OBTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-3.21

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A38; Std. 206; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This letter is seeking an interpretation on police vehicle's for the transportation of prisoners and the requirements for safety belts FMVSS 207, 208 and 210 in the prisoner area and door hardware FMVSS 206.

Are police vehicle's required to have seatbelts for prisoners?, if so, what type is required (Type I Lap or Type II 3-Point)? Does this also affect side facing seats?

To insure that prisoners cannot escape from the vehicle, the police market has requested camlock door hardware on rear and side doors. Does this need to meet FMVSS 206?

ID: nht91-3.22

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Keith Salsman -- Independent Inventor

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsul, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert York

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Keith Salsman (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am an independent inventor seeking a Letter of Interpretation concerning a type of brake light which I have spent several years working on and currently have patent pending status. During that time I have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, inventor contact for NHTSA, and more recently Mr. Dick Stromboten who replaced him due to his retirement. I have also talked briefly with Kevin Cavey.

The brake light device, which I call the Braking Intensity Array, is a high mount brake light designed to effectively alert a following car as to the braking status of the forward car. The light is an array of lights that light up first in the center, exactly as the current high mount brake lights, in response to any pressure on the brake pedal. However, if any actual braking occurs then the lights on either side of the center lights will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force, the lights next to them under a stronger braking force, the next lights under an even stronger braking force, and the outer most lights lighting only under a very strong braking force such as emergency braking. Thus the light lights in both directions from the center. Research has indicated that this is very easily interpreted by someone completely unfamiliar with the device.

During the developmental process I have tried to insure absolute compliance with any rule, regulation, or past safety concern. The center lights of the array are wired directly to the current brake light switch and will comply with the regulations on high mount brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations 571 section 108. The rest of the array is controlled by a separate device which is also connected to the brake switch and will not operate independently. There are fail safe measures to insure that the light will always operate the same regardless of vehicle incline or speed. In addition, as per Dr. Clark's suggestions, the light's response time to various braking forces will be very close to 3 milliseconds which is quick enough to give the light "Real Value" and not just "Perceived Value".

In the past year I have approached several companies with my idea. Most are interested but unwilling to pursue anything because of what they called "too much government involvement" to overcome. Recently NAPA Auto Parts has expressed a keen interest, as well as TRUCK-LITE. Mr. Robert York of TRUCK-LITE has sent me an honest non-disclosure agreement and has given a favorable response. He told me that he will send a Request for a Letter of Interpretation as well. However, since he has signed a non-disclosure it is difficult for him to be specific. Therefore, I have submitted this request in addition to his.

The General Estimates System of the Department of Transportation has on record in 1988 a total of 6,875,500 Police Reported Roadway Accidents. A total of 1,622,000 were reported as Rear End Collisions. Many more of these roadway accidents could be of a secondary nature to a Rear End Collision, for example, a vehicle swerved to avoid a rear end collision and struck another object. Approximately 500,000 of the Rear End Collisions involved minor or moderate injury and 1,962 involved fatalities. The most common injury involved spinal trauma or whiplash. This injury usually persists long after the accident. High-mount headrests are installed as a safety feature now to avoid this.

A great majority of these Rear End Collisions occurred in our cities during periods of heavy traffic causing traffic jams and lost working hours. As the traffic continues to increase in the cities and urban areas, we can expect the number of such rear end collisions to increase substantially.

The following articles of the Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment are concerned with high-mount brake lights. In S2, article 571.08, it states:

Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

In S5.1.1.27 of the same article, it states:

Each passenger car manufacture on or after September 1,1985, shall be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp which: a) Shall have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

c) Shall have a the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10.

d) Need not meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture, 3.1.7 Dust Test and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle. e) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools.

In S5.3.1.8: Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the

rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.

In S5.4.1:

Two or more lamps, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp and no high-mounted stop shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

In S5.5.4:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

In S5.5.10:

b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1986, may flash when the hazard warning system is activated.

These are all references to high-mounted brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I respectfully submit that my Braking Intensity Array can be manufactured according to the regulations on high-mounted brake lights, and if so manufactured would not violate any of those rules or regulations nor would it deviate from the spirit, intent, or purpose of the Federal Code of Regulations.

In conclusion the brake light described above should help to reduce rear end collisions by alerting the car behind as to the braking condition of the vehicle. Also in congested areas of traffic it will help to keep traffic flowing more smoothly. This is due to the overreaction of many drivers to the brake lights of the car ahead. In many cases a driver may rest his foot on the brake with no braking pressure, however the car following sees the brake light come on and applies some braking force. The next car applies even more force, and so on until traffic is forced to stop. As traffic continues to increase this problem will become greater. This has been recognized and there has been some work done to install computers in cars to alert the computer in the following car as to the braking condition. Why not give the driver the information first?

ID: nht91-3.23

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A37; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are updating our files on auxiliary seating such as temporary or folding jump seats. This will pertain to walk-in van type vehicles under and over 10,000 GVW.

Will jump seats be required to meet FMVSS 207, 208 and 210? Also, will they need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats?

Your help with these questions will be appreciated.

ID: nht91-3.24

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Paul R. Kirchgraber -- Souvenirs of the Future

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request For Interpretation of Federal Standards Compliance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul R. Kirchgraber (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a legal interpretation from your office on exactly which standards, if any, my firm needs to comply with in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover for on-road vehicular use. This tire cover is to be made from a new fabric that our company has developed which is both solar heat reflective and highly reflective of light (see enclosed).

We believe that when this cover is placed on the exterior mounted tire of a motor home, trailer, passenger van or four wheel drive, it will provide a significant safety enhancement by making the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic.

The THERMAL reflective characteristic of this tire cover currently has important use in the off-road motor car racing industry in that it helps keep the temperature of high performance racing tires at a constant level prior to race time. Because of the LIGHT reflective characteristics, we are also interested in adapting this product for on-road use as an external tire cover.

In order to offer this product for commercial sale, we want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard. I would be grateful if you would please cite any appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories.

ID: nht91-3.25

DATE: April 19, 1991

FROM: Andreas Geis -- Robert Bosch GMBH, Automotive Division

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, Effective: January 1, 1969. Loading State for developing (VISION) AREAS A,B,C.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Andreas Geis (A38; Std. 104); Also attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Kadoya

TEXT:

being a manufacturer of windshield wiper systems we are often required to develope the (Vision) Areas A,B,C as defined in FMVSS 104 S4.1.2.1 in conjunction with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

We know from developing other vision areas and it has been recognized by the SAE (see SAE J903c, Nov 1973, para. 3.1.1) that the loading state of the vehicle is not without influence on the position and size of the Vision Areas. Unfortunately neither FMVSS 104 nor the older SAE J903a, which FMVSS 104 refers to, make any mention of the loading state.

May we kindly ask you to inform us how this problem is normally handled? Is there perhaps a newer edition of FMVSS 104 or a preamble or a comment on this subject? Or is it left to the discretion of the manufacturer on which loading state he bases the development of the Vision Areas?

We would greatly appreciate your early reply.

ID: nht91-3.26

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent Morris -- President, Memory Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Kent Morris to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5812)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, with reference to compliance of your product, the M-53 replica of the 1953-55 Corvette, with Federal regulations. You have also asked two specific questions which I shall answer first.

You report that Texas does not consider a "manufacturer" to include persons assembling vehicles with any used components, and you ask whether this is correct, and whether it matters "on a national basis". We are unable to advise you on Texas law. However, whether a person is a "manufacturer" under the laws that this agency administers is determined with reference to Federal statutory definitions and not State laws. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "manufacturer" is defined in pertinent part as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." As no qualifier is used in the definition, a "manufacturer" is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle, whether or not the parts are new.

Your second question is whether production quantity has "any bearing on compliance with federal safety laws or emissions." We are unable to answer your question with respect to emissions, as relevant statutes and regulations are enforced by an agency outside the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency. However, production quantity is irrelevant to the obligation to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if only one vehicle per month is produced (such as the turnkey version of the M-53). Nevertheless, the Safety Act permits low-volume manufacturers (those producing 10,000 or less new motor vehicles a year) to petition for a temporary exemption of up to three years from any standard where immediate compliance would create a substantial economic hardship for the manufacturer.

Kit cars, especially those manufactured from a combination of new and previously used parts, have presented problems of interpretation for the agency from the beginning. The root of the difficulty is that Congress apparently did not consider this type of manufacturing operation when it promulgated the Safety Act, and we have had to use the authority that was provided us to fashion interpretations on an ad hoc basis as varied fact situations arise.

With respect to the M-53, you state that it is sold both as a "kit" and as a "turnkey." As a kit, the M-53 is sold as a rolling unit, and you have enclosed a list of "Donor Parts Necessary to complete the M-53", the items that the kit purchaser must furnish. As both a "kit" and a "turnkey", a

new fiberglass body is mounted on "a used chassis from a 1978-85 Chevrolet Monte Carlo", but one that is shortened and given new side rails. The Memory kit retains the existing rear axle assembly and front end components. On the turnkey, Memory installs a new engine and a used (but rebuilt) automatic transmission.

Under our interpretations, the kit M-53, lacking an engine, is an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, not a motor vehicle. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of this nature, or continue to apply to assemblage equipment items previously in use on the Monte Carlo that may have been refurbished for use on the M-53. Certain of the safety standards do apply to new equipment items. The standards that apply to components that appear to be used in the M-53 cover brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Thus, if your company is fabricating (or causing to be fabricated) any of these items for the M-53 kit, they must meet Federal standards that apply to them. In general, items manufactured in the United States for sale in the aftermarket ought to comply with these standards. However, the windshield and other glazing for the M-53 will be newly fabricated and you must ensure that they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In addition, as the manufacturer of the assemblage, Memory is responsible for notification of owners should an item in the kit fail to comply with a Federal standard or if the assemblage contains a safety related defect, and for remedy of the noncompliance or defect. After a kit is sold, the person completing the assemblage into a motor vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring its compliance with the Federal safety standards that apply to passenger cars, if the motor vehicle appears to be "new", as subsequently discussed.

With respect to the "turnkey" vehicle, different considerations apply. The Safety Act states that Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) (which establishes the requirement that motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards) shall not apply to the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The basic legal question with respect to a turnkey kit car is whether it has so deviated from the original components (such as engine and chassis), and attributes (such as VIN and original registration) of a donor car that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a vehicle which has been previously purchased. For example, a kit car consisting of a new body on a used Volkswagen chassis, and which continues the original VW registration is considered to be a used vehicle, and one not required to conform to safety standards applicable to newly manufactured vehicles.

After review of this matter, we have decided that if the chassis of a donor vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it would no longer accept the original body, the chassis will be considered "new". Under your operation, the chassis is shortened, so that the original Monte Carlo body will no longer fit. Further, the body is new, and a new engine is used. The old Monte Carlo components retained include the rear axle

assembly and front end components. On balance, we believe that the M-53 turnkey is a "new" passenger car, and one that must comply with all today's safety standards, including the requirement for automatic restraint systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you. We appreciate your efforts to determine your responsibilities.

ID: nht91-3.27

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991, to the Administrator attaching a copy of a letter dated December 14, 1990, and commenting that you hadn't received a response to it. The reason you didn't receive a response to the letter is that the agency has no record of receiving it.

Your letter requests a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for an electric minibus currently being operated in Allentown, Pa. The temporary exemptions granted by this agency are not retroactive, and cover only vehicles manufactured on and after the date of grant. Thus, it is not legally possible to exempt a vehicle after its manufacture. In the event Electric Vehicles, S.A., might be interested in obtaining exemptions for future vehicles, I enclose a copy of the agency's regulation on temporary exemptions, 49 CFR Part 555, as your letter of December 14 was not adequate for this purpose.

Our importation regulations make an exception from compliance for the importation of vehicles that are used for demonstration projects such as the one you have outlined in your letter. Under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported for a period of up to 5 years (and longer, if the Administrator grants a request for an extension) if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." According to your letter, your electric bus is being used as part of a joint test and evaluation program between your company, a regional transportation authority, a State energy office, and a public utility. The importation of the bus for this use is within these exceptions to compliance. This exception would appear to cover the importation of any further electric minibuses imported for the same purpose, provided that the information specified in section 591.5(g) is supplied.

ID: nht91-3.28

DATE: April 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-12-91 from David A. White to Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, 1991, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.