ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-4.29

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Debby Funk to The United States Department of Transportation (OCC 6130)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 4, 1991, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

ID: nht91-5.44

DATE: September 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-91 from John Marcum to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5988)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 26, 1991, asking for a clarification of my letter to you of April 22.

As we advise you, under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." You ask whether "demonstrations or training" includes the carrying of passengers for demonstrations and evaluations. The answer is yes. Where, as here, the imported vehicle is intended for public transit, the carrying of passengers would appear to be an important and necessary part of demonstrating the features of the bus and evaluating the feasibility of offering electric-power public transportation in the United States.

You also ask whether there are any special conditions that may be observed, such as whether passengers should be charged for the rides. There are no special conditions that NHTSA has imposed under section 591.5(j) that relate to your operation. However, any test should be consistent with safe vehicle operation, such as not loading the vehicle above the capacity of the tires and suspension, having adequate braking ability, and provision for sufficient emergency exits. The question of whether a fee should be imposed for riding the bus could be relevant in a personal injury action brought against you by a rider; however, this is not a question to be answered under Federal law. You should consult a private attorney for guidance.

The fact that the law allows importation of a nonconforming bus for purposes of demonstration should not be interpreted as meaning that NHTSA is not concerned with the safety of a vehicle engaged in transporting members of the public. The agency believes that importers of buses should ensure that the vehicle is not loaded above the capacity of the tires and suspension, and that there is adequate braking ability and provision for emergency exits. Importers are reminded that the agency has the authority to impose terms and conditions related to safety in permitting importations of this nature.

Finally, you ask if there is a limit as to the length of time a demonstration with passengers is permitted. So long as the demonstration is ongoing and the length of time is reasonable, demonstrations with passengers would be permitted for the duration of the vehicle's stay in the United States.

ID: nht92-8.39

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Allan Schwartz (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are the manufacturer of LUMITRON, an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product. Each LUMITRON neon tube is enclosed and sealed in polycarbonate tubing and is energized by a miniature electronic module which is connected to each tube. Our LUMITRON tubes are not like the neon tubes made by local sign shops and used under vehicles. LUMITRON tubes require NO external high voltage (6,000 to 12,000 volt) transformers and NO interconnections of high voltage GTO wires running under the vehicle between the neon display tubes and into the engine compartment.

The product described above is legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle. We do NOT manufacture this product for street use in RED, BLUE, YELLOW, and WHITE because they are reserved for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. After speaking with both The Florida Highway Patrol and Mr. Kevin Cavey, N.H.T.S.A., Dept. of Transportation they confirmed our findings that our product falls under 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) Sec. 571.108. A highlighted copy of this section is enclosed for your convenience to reference. As you can imagine we were delighted to learn that our LUMITRON neon lighting kit, when installed and used as per our instructions, places the user's vehicle into further compliance with S2 Purpose as it illuminates the roadway and enhances the conspicuity of the vehicle thus reducing the possibility of traffic accidents, deaths and injuries.

We have been informed by our dealer, Mr. Harry Adcock of All State Audio Services, Inc., 11554 Plank Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70811 that Louisiana and possibly other states have not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting. Authorities in Louisiana believe these products are legal but they have to be approved by the Commissioner. We would be most appreciative if you could write us a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that State. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 2882o

Mr. Frank V. Tanzella
Tek Tron, Inc.
10R Rainbow Terrace Unit E
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Tanzella:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: 7169-3

Mr. Charles Chun
General Manager
Kia Motors Corporation
Los Angeles Office
1 Technology Drive, Building H
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Chun:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214#571#567 d:5/22/92

ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,