ID: nht95-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/16/95 letter from Kenneth W. Easterling to Taylor Vinson (OCC 11372); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1995, asking for our opinion of "G-Lamps", ("proportional deceleration indicator lamps) intended as a rear end collision avoidance device. Your system would flash the stop lamps proportionally to the rate of deceleration.

Over the years, the agency has received many requests for interpretations of the laws which it administers as they relate to deceleration warning systems. Our reply has been that it is impermissible to wire the stop lamp system so that it flashes, no ma tter what the purpose of the flashing. I enclose for your information, as a representative reply, a copy of our letter of July 30, 1993, to Wayne Ferguson of the Virginia Department of Transportation, which fully sets forth our views and interpretations .

If you have questions about these matters, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office at 202-366-5263.

Enclosure: (see 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson)

ID: nht95-6.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-6.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature By Stephen P. Wood

TO: Thomas A. Placey, Esq. -- Senior Assistant District Attorney, Office of the District Attorney, Cumberland County; One Courthouse Square

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/21/95 LETTER FROM THOMAS A. PLACEY TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Placey:

This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered the VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return.

You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations."

We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For an overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statues under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle.

There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if the conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165.

We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal And Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp system containing fog lamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We are planning to develop headlamp systems that produce high beam, low beam and fog lamp beam. The fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaniously. Please refer to the attached drawing for the possible operating conditions.

The FMVSS No. 108 specifies no requirement for fog lamp, except that the lamp shall not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. (S5.1.3) And we believe such a combination we are planning will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

We would like to ask you to give your advice whether such a combination of fog lamp and high beam can be accepted under the FMVSS No. 108.

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-6.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995

FROM: Hai Tee Young

TO: Secretary of Transportation, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/15/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Hai Tee Young (A43; Std. 205)

TEXT: I invented and designed slats for passenger transportations (see my disclosure document to Patent and Trade Mark Commisioner), but my patent lawyer thought this is "almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous . . . safety regulations preventing this" (see his letter dated August 11, 1995)

But I don't see why this will be objected by law or safety regulation, this is not only no hazardous, on contrary, eliminate hazards. Firstly, if the slats are made of fine and thin materials, those slats will appear as fine lines in driver's and passengers' eyes, it does not hinder driver's sight and vision, Secondly, if the edges of slats are also soft, in a case of car collision, the driver or passengers either sit on front or back seats without fastening belt, their heads and hands hit the glasses, these slats will not make cuts on them, on contrary, will slow down the speed of their bodies to finally hit the glasses, thus reduce the degree of injury. We can even design double glasses and install those slats between the double glasses adjustable by either manually or electric automatic control. There will be no any reason to oppose such a device.

Will Your Honor tell me whether my patent attorney's guess is true that there may exist any law and safety regulation against such kind of device? If there really exist such law and regulation, as my analyses point out above, since my this device makes every good thing without side effects, there shall have no reason to be opposed, but such law and regulation shall be revised.

Please help me with Your Honor's best. This is my beginning inventions, not my ending ones. If I can succeed on those beginning ones, I shall march forward from here toward greater and greatest inventions which will give human being great help. So I bessech you to give me your best help in order to encourage my future real great inventions which can help all mankind greatly.

Looking forward your prompt respond and help,

(Brochure and graphics omitted.)

Enclosure

August 11, 1995

Hai Tee Young 10313 Lower Azusa Road Temple City, CA 91780

Re: SUNSHINE SHELTERS FOR ALL PASSENGERS TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Young:

I am in receipt of your disclosure entitled as above and relating to the use of conventional multiple-slat blinds on windows of automobiles, aircraft, trains, or the like.

Use of blinds or slats on a front window of an automobile or aircraft is almost certainly going to be objected to as being hazardous. If you check, I am sure you will find that there are safety regulations preventing this.

If you find that this is permitted by law, details of the slats' construction, how they are mounted, and, if adjustable, how adjustment is made should be determined before filing a patent application. As I view your disclosure materials, they pertain to a broad "idea" and not to a specific piece of equipment.

I do not take an interest in an invention as payment for patenting services.

Very truly yours, GEORGE J. NETTER, ESQ

ID: nht95-6.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1995

FROM: Glenn J. Vick -- National Account Manager, Marketing and Sales Office, Commercial Truck Vehicle Center, Ford Automotive Operations

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GLENN J. VICK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 221; PART 567; PART 568)

TEXT: Attention: Office of Chief Council.

This is to request your assistance in providing me with clarification on FMVSS 221 (Body Joint Strength).

Our engineering staff is in the process of introducing a new E-350 super duty for the school bus industry. The GVW rating of this unit will be 14,050 lbs. Ford Motor Company will manufacture the the E-350 super duty chassis with a cut-away cab to be delivered to various body companies for after market installation of the school bus body . . . ie, Collins, US Bus, etc . . . I am confused as to how [Illegible Word] FMVSS 221 standard will apply to our chassis.

Please provide me with a written clarification regarding FMVSS 221 and how it applies our E-350 cut-away chassis. If you need additional information or have any questions, you may contact me at (313) 323-9617.

ID: nht95-6.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1995

FROM: Signature Illegible; John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James V. Woodsmall, Esquire -- Warrick & Boyn

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 31, 1995 LETTER FROM JAMES WOODSMALL TO COLEMAN SACHS NOT AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woodsmall:

This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1995 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requirements for affixing a certification label to motor vehicles, as found in 49 CFR Part 567. Your letter states that you have made this request on behalf of a client who converts completed pickup trucks into larger trucks or sport utility vehicles. In this process of this conversion, your client removes the door-latch post on which the original manufacturer's certification label is permanently affixed. As your letter states, it is not possible for this label to be removed without being completely destroyed.

Although not stated in your letter, in a prior telephone conversation with Mr. Sachs, you stated that the vehicles converted by your client have yet to be sold to their first retail purchaser. Given this circumstance, your client qualifies as a vehicle alterer. The certification requirements for vehicle alterers are stated in 49 CFR 567.7. That section provides that "[a] person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . shall allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix to the vehicle an additional label of the type and in the manner and form described in @ 567.4 . . ."

As the conversions performed by your client entail the removal of the door latch post, it is clear that he cannot comply with the requirement that the original certification label be left on the vehicle. You have proposed as a solution to this problem that in addition to the alterer's label required by 49 CFR 567.7, your client be allowed to affix a copy of the original certification label to the vehicle. The copy would state that it is a replacement label affixed by your client because the original was destroyed in the conversion process. This solution is acceptable to NHTSA, provided that the replacement label includes the explanatory text that you have proposed. In addition, we recommend that your client preserve the original label so that it may be furnished to the vehicle purchaser.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Hugh J. Bode -- Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HUGH J. BODE (REDBOOK 4; STD. 124; VSA 30118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request that NHTSA confirm that the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require a motor vehicle to continue to comply with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard after it is sold to its first retail purchaser. Specifically, we ask that NHTSA confirm that a vehicle in use is not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 (hereinafter "FMVSS 124"), after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

The vehicle at issue is a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation in Japan and distributed by Chrysler Corporation in the United States. The pickup was equipped with a Mikuni Model 32-35-DIDEF-328 carburetor. When it was first sold, the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck was certified by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation as being in compliance with all then applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 124.

As we understand it, former @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

We ask that you confirm the accuracy of the foregoing general statement of the applicability of the FMVSS under the Safety Act. In addition, we ask that you address the following specific questions concerning the application of FMVSS 124 to the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup:

1. We ask NHTSA to confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle.

2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124.

3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5.

4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance.

We thank you in advance for your assistance in confirming these points.

ID: nht95-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have impact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church groups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM