ID: nht92-1.8

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TO: PATRICK BOYD -- CRASH AVOIDANCE DIVISION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS L. WRIGHT (A40; STD. 205)

TEXT: I am waiting to request an update on the status of the proposed rulemaking for window tinting standards as published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 14, January 22, 1992.

The proposal states that a state may not establish a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance for equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Does this provision cause state laws which permit add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons to be in violation of Federal law?

Additionally, I would like to request a copy of the referenced Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-1.9

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JANET TAYLOR -- MARKETING AND SALES MANAGER, A-PEX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM JANET TAYLOR TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 7922)

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of thRvrzz" $`@\"4)4) 4)%$4)%955Y54)Y5 YM4)MI4(4 of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today. xample, S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1. Nothing in Standard No. 121 specifies an exception for vehicles with a maximum speed below 50 mph. Moreover, since the tests in question are dynamometer tests and not road tests, there would be no difficulty in conducting the tests at a speed higher than the vehicle's maximum speed.

I note that this opinion assumes that Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicles in question. Certain vehicles with slow maximum speeds are excluded from the standard's coverage. See S3. However, these exclusions do not appear to apply to the refuse trucks in question.

Your letter appears to imply that Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are inappropriate for vehicles which have a maximum speed governed to less than 50 mph. We note, however, that a governor set at 45 mph does not prohibit a vehicle from achieving speeds greater than 50 mph in certain situations such as driving downhill. In addition, as indicated above, the specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate the severe driving conditions caused by prolonged and severe use and long downhill driving. The same degree of heating can occur at speeds below 50 mph. Therefore, we believe that the specified tests are appropriate for vehicles with a maximum speed governed to below 50 mph.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. at they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design 92.

ID: nht92-2.1

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to Raymond S. Byers (A41; Part 567)

TEXT: I am writing to you regarding the federal label location on Utilimaster Motor Corporation's "Aeromate" front wheel drive van. The approved label locations, as published in CFR 49, part 567.4, are not practical for the "Aeromate" vehicle. The Aeromate has a driver's door which slides between an inner and outer metal panel. However, access is available on the left-hand side of the driver's position. Therefore, we propose to install the federal label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening. This location would be visible from the driver's position and to inspection from officials.

The enclosed photographs depict the proposed label location, submitted for your approval.

I am looking forward to receiving your decision regarding approval of our proposed federal label location.

ID: nht92-2.10

DATE: November 23, 1992

FROM: T. Kouchi -- Director & General Manager, Automotive Equipment, Development & Administration Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are investigating the development of automotive tail & stop lamps using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

We have already asked you about Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL) using LEDs and have received your letter of January 9, 1986, in which you answered that such type of CHMSL would be acceptable when it complies with the photometric requirements and provides replaceability of light sources (S4.1.41(e)) specified in FMVSS No. 108.

From your answer, we consider that LEDs can be used in tail & stop lamps.

Now we would like to ask you additional questions as follows:

(1) Is it possible for us to group LED tail & stop lamps into three categories in terms of the number of lighted sections to determine applicable photometric requirements, as specified in paragraph 4.1.5.1 of SAE J1389 JUN83?

(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section as "one" in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimensions?

(3) Where the number of lighted section is determined as "one" in the above, can we locate "the geometric center of the illuminated area" at the point marked in the attached drawing, according to paragraph 2.6 of SAE J1389 JUN83?

We would be very pleased if you kindly inform us of your points of view for the above(1)-(3).

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.11

DATE: 11/23/92

FROM: HARRY CAMERON -- PRESIDENT, SAFETY, LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-22-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HARRY CAMERON (A40; STD. 209; VSA 108)

TEXT:

November 23, 1992 I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. Jim Gilkey of the Vehicle Safety Office.

This letter is to inquire into the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206.

We have a request for a branch of the Defense Department to provide this service as they have a problem replacing belts which have worn and frayed webbing when new belts are not available or over priced.

This is a normal function for us as we are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to repair, inspect and recertify aircraft belts. This is accomplished as FAA Repair Station FY5R9874M, with repairs complying with our operation specifications manual, "Repairs to aircraft seat belts per manufacturers recommendations, TSO and AC 43.13-1A Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 361".

I understand this requirement has not surfaced in the past, but I believe there will be a need in the future resulting from the increased use of restraints in high milage vehicles and responsible procedures should be extablished.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-2.12

DATE: 11/20/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RON NOIRFALISE -- DIRECTOR OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

TEXT: This follows up your telephone conversation of November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly-effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people.

As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992.

ID: nht92-2.13

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN, ESQ. -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-29-92 FROM DONALD G. MCGUIGAN TO KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN (OCC 7774)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1992 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992.

Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states:

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than "park," i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be "inappropriate," because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard.

We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in "park" as a direct result of removing the key.

Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in "park" as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit.

You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key-locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "park" detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is "held short of engaging the 'Park' positioning detent."

We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-2.14

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. LESLIE DOBSON -- OWNER, MCKINNEY VEHICLE SERVICES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-27-92 FROM J. LESLIE DOBSON TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7923); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3-19-91 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO JERRY TASSAN (PART 567); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7-1-92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO GENE FOUTS

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 27, 1992, in which you asked how your company would go about lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) assigned to some "Bobtail" trucks. Your letter explained that your company is a truck rental company that owns about 50 Bobtail trucks with a GVWR of approximately 28,000 pounds each. According to your letter, your company's rental business has decreased dramatically since the State of California's requirement for a commercial driver's license to operate vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 26,000 pounds took effect. You would now like to lower the GVWR of your trucks to 26,000 pounds so that the trucks would no longer be subject to the commercial driver's licensing requirements.

In a March 19, 1991, letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, the owner of a truck rental company in San Francisco, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the vehicle's original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. In a July 1, 1992, letter to Mr. Gene Fouts, I explained that modifications to an assigned GVWR should be made only when the manufacturer had made an error regarding the originally assigned GVWR, not for reasons related to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. I have enclosed copies of both these letters for your information. Accordingly, I do not believe there is any way whereby your leasing company could lower the GVWR assigned to your Bobtail trucks.

If you have any further questions about the subject of GVWR, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.15

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: O. SCHMIDT -- HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- VISIBILITY AND CONTROLS GROUP, NHTSA

TITLE: REPLACEABILITY OF LIGHT SOURCES OF CENTER HIGH MOUNTED STOP LAMPS (CHMSL)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-11-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO O. SCHMIDT (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Since the introduction of CHMSL in 1985 it seems to be state-of-the-art in using non-replaceable light sources for CHMSL, so that in case of a failure the entire unit or the bulb carrier of devices with a number of light sources has to be replaced.

Could you please confirm that the wording of paragraph S 5.1.1.27 in subpara. (a)(5) and (b)(4) does not exclude the practice of using sealed lamps described in para. S 5.1.1.17, which is less expensive, especially in cases where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided.

From our point of view the requirement in S 5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) concerning the simple bulb replacement can be extended to the complete unit or bulb carrier, whatever the design of a CHMSL may be.

Many thanks for your interest.

ID: nht92-2.16

DATE: November 20, 1992

FROM: L. Schmidt

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to L. Schmidt (A41; Std. 301)

TEXT: I am writing to obtain some information regarding changing engines in cars -- the questions are.

1. Is there any law that forbids replacing a worn out gas engine in a U.S. or foreign automobile with a diesel engine -- like a 6 cylinder Diesel Cummins engine which is in a Dodge pickup truck? (the 3/4 ton type)

2. If there is a law that forbids that -- does it only apply to the zone in a state where emissions tests are yearly required?

Please let me know about this. I was told its possible there is a law on this.

I would assume that the GM Diesel engine passenger cars could have engines switched to other better diesel engines if there was a law against switching the other way.

Please let me know as we would like to know about this.