ID: nht91-5.33

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry/Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation for 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S.4.2.5.6.2 and 49 CFR Part 585; Ref: W-491-H

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-28-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A38; Std. 208; Part 585)

TEXT:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., with specific authority from Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan ("Nissan"), formally requests interpretation regarding the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, "Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by more than one manufacturer" and 49 CFR Part 585, "Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements".

Nissan intends to produce a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) in a joint program with another automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "Company A") beginning in the 1992 calender year. Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide an interpretation regarding the applicability of the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S4.2.5.6.2, and 49 CFR Part 585.5(c)(3)(i) with regards to calculations of percentages of vehicles within its composite fleet for the purposes of complying with the passive restraint phase-in requirements set forth in FMVSS 208, as recently amended to include light duty trucks and MPV classified vehicles.

Company A will assemble the MPV in a domestic (U.S.) assembly plant. Nissan has undertaken the majority of design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components to Company A for the purposes of assembly. Nissan believes that this activity meets the substantive requirements such that Nissan may be considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Nissan and Company A have mutually agreed upon the terms of a supplemental exhibit to the governing Design and Development contract that stipulates that Company A is the "manufacturer of the vehicle and will inscribe its name on the certification label." Additionally, the contract supplemental exhibit apportions among the two automakers the responsibility for defect investigations, safety noncompliances and statutory mandated submissions to the NHTSA.

Upon mutual consent by both manufacturers, company A will count Company A badged vehicles in its total fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages, while Nissan will count Nissan badged vehicles in its composite fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages. A separate document that acknowledges this agreement will be prepared and ratified by representatives of both Company A and Nissan.

Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide Nissan with an interpretation to the following issues:

1) Is Nissan considered a "Manufacturer", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, of the jointly produced MPV?

2) Can Nissan use the Nissan badged vehicles in its calculations in demonstrating compliance regarding the phase-in schedule for the passive restraint devices as amended for light trucks and MPV in FMVSS 208?

Please inform Nissan Research & Development, Inc. of your interpretation regarding these features at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any questions or require further information regarding this request for interpretation or related matters, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: nht91-5.34

DATE: September 4, 1991

FROM: Michael E. Kastner -- Director of Government Relations, National Truck Equipment Association

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael E. Kastner (A38; Part 567; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to meet with Mark Sidman and myself last Friday concerning FMUSS 204 and the difficulties faced by Multi-stage Manufacturers in certification. I also wanted to take this opportunity and pose a question to you or your staff.

The National Truck Equipment Association ("NTEA") has encountered a number of questions involving the need for an altered certification label under a particular set of circumstances. We would like NHTSA's interpretation of the following scenario.

An NTEA member receives a truck which is certified as a completed vehicle. This vehicle has not yet been titled or registered for use in any state. The NTEA member then installs a piece of equipment. This piece of equipment would not be considered readily attachable, nor would this equipment modify the completed vehicle's weight ratings. Both the completed truck manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer have stated that installation of this equipment would not affect compliance with any federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under these circumstances, does the company installing the equipment on the completed vehicle need to affix an altered vehicle label?

Traditionally, the NTEA has advised its members that an altered vehicle label is required in this situation. If that is not the case we would like to advise our members accordingly.

Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

ID: nht91-5.35

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jt Covelli -- President, Jt Covelli Marketing & Media

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter undated from Jt Covelli to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6369)

TEXT:

This responds to your recent undated letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light.

THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner.

Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-1986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum "effective projected luminous area" of 4 1/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal.

ID: nht91-5.36

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vel McCaslin -- Director, Grace After School

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Vel McCaslin to Mary Versailles

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 16, 1991, asking whether Grace After School is a "school" or "school-related event." This letter was in response to our letter of May 29, 1991, which concluded that the vans used to transport children to your program would be considered "school buses" only if your program is a "school or school-related event." You explained that your program is conducted from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. daily, and operates under the auspices of Grace Presbyterian Church. The program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church. Once there, they are provided with snacks, have a period of about 1 hour for homework, and then go into activities like roller skating, art, music, and religion classes." No transportation home is provided. You also accept children from Grace School, a school which is connected with the church, but those children do not need transportation.

To determine whether a program like Grace After School is a "school," the agency looks at whether the function of the facility is primarily educational or custodial in nature. Based upon the description you have provided, it does not appear that Grace After school is a school.

To determine whether a program like Grace After School is a school-related event," the agency looks at the overall relationship between the program and the schools from which children are being transported to attend the program. Assuming that there is no significant relationship between Grace After School and the schools from which the children are being transported, it does not appear that Grace After School is a school-related event.

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

ID: nht91-5.37

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: Nikki G. Setzler --Setzler, Chewning & Scott, P.A.

TO: Ronald E. Ingle -- Chief, Safety Countermeasures Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSA

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Nikki G. Setzler (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Our office represents a school district in South Carolina, which has two vans that it purchased used after 1977 and both vans are built to carry more than 11 passengers. These vans are used by the school district for various purposes, including the transportation of school children for school-related purposes, and/or activities. I have reviewed various documents and regulations with regards to the issue of whether or not the National Traffic and Motor Safety Vehicle Act of 1966 and/or the Highway Safety Act would preclude the district from using these two vans to transport school children when the vans were purchased used after 1977. I would appreciate it very much if you would advise me whether or not it is your interpretation that any provision of either Act or any regulation pursuant thereto would prevent the district from using these vans.

ID: nht91-5.38

DATE: September 6, 1991

FROM: None

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (A38; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

This is to request confirmation of our interpretation that specific future vehicle models may be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Attachment I contains a description of these future vehicle models.

As described in Attachment I, the new models will be constructed on a truck chassis. The chassis-frame is separate from the vehicle body (a design usually associated only with trucks) and the chassis was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation.

The vehicles also have special features for occasional off-road operation.

- Attachment I describes some of the special features for off-road operation.

- Attachment II shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for the new models (preliminary estimates) with characteristics listed in NHTSA's CAFE regulations which are used to identify vehicles capable of off-highway operation (minimum approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and front and rear axle clearances). The new models are expected to meet the criteria for three out of the five off-highway vehicle characteristics listed.

- Attachment III shows a comparison of vehicle specifications for approach angle, departure angle, breakover angle, running clearance, and axle clearances for a variety of current model passenger cars and MPVs with estimated specifications for the new models. In general, the new models have specifications outside the range of most passenger cars and within or close to the range of most MPVs.

Because the future vehicle models described above are constructed on a truck chassis and have special features for occasional off-road operation, we believe that they would be properly classified as MPVs for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please confirm that our interpretation is correct.

ATTACHMENT I

Description of Future Vehicle Models ATTACHMENT II

CAFE Regulation Minimum Preliminary Vehicle for Automobiles Capable Estimate for Characteristic of Off-Road Operation New Models

Approach angle 28 degrees Departure angle 20 degrees Breakover angle 14 degrees Running clearance 203 mm Axle clearance Front 178 mm Rear 178 mm

ATTACHMENT III

Charts and graphs showing vehicle specifications. (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-5.39

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alonzo Bendolph

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-9-91 from Alonzo Bendolph to Legal Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6346)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 9, 1991 concerning possible regulations governing the placement of personalized stickers in the upper portion of the front windshield and rear window of a vehicle. You were told by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles that all signs, other than inspection and registration stickers, placed in the front windshield and rear window are illegal. You asked the position of this agency concerning the issue.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. In addition, the modification of a vehicle, after that vehicle has been sold to a consumer, could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides, in part, that:

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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . However, the above provisions of Federal law do not affect either the operation of vehicles by the owners of those vehicles or modifications to vehicles by their owners. The individual States have the authority to regulate the operation, use, and modification of vehicles by their owners. In the case your describe, the State of New York has exercised its authority to restrict the display of signs on vehicle windshields and rear windows. The wisdom and fairness of those restrictions is something to be decided by the State of New York, not the Federal government.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.4

DATE: July 22, 1991

FROM: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs, Ltd.

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS-118, Power Windows

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ernest Wolf (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation and opinion is submitted by the International Sunroof Institute (ISI), which I represent as the chairman of the Legislative Issues Subcommittee of the Technical Committee. ISI is an organization of approximately one dozen companies engaged in the manufacture and/or import/distribution of 'open air products' for the U.S. automotive market. ISI is incorporated as a non-profit organization in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Open air products include pop-out sunroofs, manual sliding and/or venting sunroofs, electric sliding and/or venting sunroofs, and manual or electric spoiler roof panels.

This request is being submitted specifically with the concurrence of those ISI member companies involved with power operated sunroofs, which will be covered by the FMVSS 118 rules as published in the April 16, 1991 issue of the Federal Register. The identities of these companies and the signatures of their representatives (via FAX communication) are shown on the attached Addendum.

Our request is for clarification of the applicability of the automatic reversing requirement when a one-time activated closing panel meets a resistive force of 22 lbs (10 kg or 100 Newtons) or more (ref Para. 571:118 Section 5(a)), with such applicability being related to operator location.

The background commentary preceding the proposed amended Standard No. 118, as published in the above cited reference, pages 15290-15295, and the amended rules proposed for implementation September 1, 1992, refer specifically to EXTERNAL key and non-key locking systems and to REMOTE control systems where continuous device activation is required to operate a power operated window system. Section 4(c) and Section 4(d) address exterior or remote activation devices; Section 5 specifically addresses one-time activation of EXTERIOR (a.1) or REMOTE (a.2) devices, or continuous activation from a distance of more than 20 feet (a.3). The reversing requirement by a force of 22 lbs or more relates only to these exterior or remote situations. That these were the singular focus and intention of this new rulemaking also becomes apparent when reading prior NHTSA publications and internal memos (e.g., B. Felrice to P. J. Rice, dated 10/16/90).

Therefore, it appears evident to us that the amended Standard No. 118 does not preclude roof panel closing by one-time activation of an internally positioned activator (switch) within a vehicle by an operator seated within that vehicle.

Legal Counsel is requested to provide an interpretation of the proposed rules relating specifically to the one-time activation of a sunroof panel

from the open to the closed mode (express close from open) by a vehicle operator, seated within the vehicle under either the Section 4(a) or Section 4(e) circumstances.

We respectfully submit that the proposed rules, as written, do not prohibit one-time activation for the closing of a power operated sunroof panel by a vehicle operator acting within 118 Section 4(a) or Section 4(e), and that the reversing pressure limitation in Section 5(a) does not apply to such a situation. The Legal Counsel's interpretation and opinion is sought at the earliest possible time.

ADDENDUM TO JULY 1, 1991 LETTER FROM ISI TO LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

The undersigned members of ISI (International Sunrool Institute) concur with the request for interpretation and opinion contained in referenced letter relating to FMVSS-118, Power Windows:

ASC Incorporated Skylite Sunroofs and Automotive One Sunroof Center Accessories, Inc. Southgate, Mi 489195 (Formerly C&C Inc.) 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, MI 48116

(Signature omitted) John Marcozzi, Director, Phillip Edwards, President Direct Sales and Secretary of ISI and ISI President

Donmar Enterprises, Inc. Webasto Sunroofs, Inc. 7980 Bayberry Road 2655 Product Drive Jacksonville, FL 32256-7410 Rochester Hills, MI 48063

(Signature omitted) (Signature omitted) Kal Levinson, President Mike Thibideau, Aftermarket and ISI Treasurer General Manager and ISI Vice President

Farmont Limited Partnership 350 East Douglas Road Oldsmar, FL 34677

Michael Winzkowski, Partner and ISI Member

ID: nht91-5.40

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-22-91 from Ernest Wolf to Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118), on behalf of the International Sunroof Institute (ISI). As you noted in your letter, the agency has published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. One such petition is from ISI. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-5.41

DATE: September 9, 1991

FROM: Gary Starr -- Solar Electric Engineering

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for exemption on the basis for the facilitation of low-emission engine features

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary Starr (A38; Part 567; Part 555)

TEXT:

Applicant: Solar Electric Engineering, Inc.(a California Corporation) 116 Fourth Street Contact: Gary Starr Santa Rosa, CA 94010

Basis for petition:

1) The motor vehicle is a low-emission vehicle as defined by section 123(g) of the Act as the vehicle is an electric vehicle.

2) Since our vehicle is a standard vehicle manufactured under NHTSA standards and originally certified by the O.E.M., the vehicle should still meet most of the original standards.

i) The motor vehicle equipped with the low emission engine (an electric motor) would if exempt perhaps differ with standard 103 (Windshield Defrosting), standard 208, specifically part 572 (Anthropomorphic Test Dummy), standard 105 (Hydraulic brake systems, and perhaps other standards which are unknown at this time or would not apply to an electric vehicle.

ii, iii, iv) The vehicles are "converted" or "altered" conventional vehicles; according to one NHTSA safety engineer, the NHTSA may not require the exemption application; however, "to be safe", we are submitting one, while we are undergoing in-house and third party testing of the vehicle. 3) A temporary exemption would greatly facilitate both the development and field evaluation of the vehicle since some of our pending financing and actual purchase orders have insisted that we apply for the exemption.

4) At the end of the exemption period, we intend to conform with all standards.

5) Not more than 2500 exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12 month period for which an exemption may be granted.

6) No data need be withheld at this time.

7) It is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Safety Act to grant the exemption because clean air vehicles are of vital interest to the public and no known safety acts would be exempted to the point to put the public at any unacceptable safety risk.